Sentences with phrase «thinking about climate trends»

Since scientists started thinking about climate trends, concerns have been raised about the continuity of records — whether they are met.

Since scientists started thinking about climate trends, concerns have been raised about the continuity of records — whether they are met.

Not exact matches

We can, therefore, compare the present warming trends (and warming / cooling cycles; think about the «mini-ice age» of the 19th Century) with the geological record and make statistical extrapolations about changing rates and develop hypotheses about causes (whichh, basically, is what current climate scientists have been doing).

Applying that simple analogy to climate trends requires us to think clearly about how we define the «target» — what is it that we are afraid the runaway climate train will «hit»?

Aspects of his comment may be unwelcome to just about everyone in one way or another, but I think it is worth noting that he says that the data issues don't detract from clear evidence of a long - term warming trend and that carbon dioxide is «a major climate forcing» (along with many others):

If you want to argue with people about the «accuracy» of global temps, present day and in the past, I think that you should take that up with someone like Judith, who thinks that the records are accurate enough to determine that there has been a trend of rising global SATs that has «paused,» and that the measurements are accurate enough to determine a «wave,» and to determine a range of the climate's sensitivity to ACO2.

No, I'm not a fan of «trends» since they are usually simplistic and misleading but since they seem to dominate about 95 % of the discussion about climate I thought a more detailed analysis may help give some insight that the usual attempts to resume any dataset with on straight line fail to do.

Thinking about the problem in terms of temperature increase for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 (which we will probably exceed with current policies and energy trends), even studies that reinforce the skeptical narrative of low mean climate sensitivity leaves some chance of warming greatly exceeding international goals and historical boundaries (say a 5 percent chance of warming exceeding 4 °C).

Of course, I don't think that one example of unusual weather tells us anything about climate trends, I merely throw this in as a counter to those who think that modest warming would be catastrophic.

Bearing in mind their previous hubris about short - term cycles being manmade, their gross, unproven assumption about CO2 as a climate driver and the fact that the signal is far less than the error bars in the noise then why would anyone think that the long - term trend is anything other than just a separate upswinging natural cycle?

That we tend to see much more discussion about global warming is I think because of the limitations of the climate models when they go to more regional and seasonal predictions and refinements of max versus min temperature trends.

I suspect that even if temperatures increase faster than the expected trend, whereas some people will say «Look, AGW is even worse than we thought», some other people will say «See, they don't know anything about the climate — something else is responsible for this.»

It is sardonic, but I think it is may be worth noting here, I see it as a part of a trend for budding sceptical thoughts about climate science.

The problem with the chart is that it starts in 1998 (not to mention thinking anything particularly meaningful about long - term climate trends can be extrapolated from 12 years — try this one instead).

Perhaps if I make comments about 30 years as the minimum in climate studies, you might think about retracting this comment or at the very least cease complaining that «deniers» need to get their heads around the concept (if you make such complaints), or at the very least, deride anyone who uses < 30 year trends as «proof» of anything in climate.