Sentences with phrase «trends by pausing»

Not exact matches

So the report notes that the current «pause» in new global average temperature records since 1998 — a year that saw the second strongest El Nino on record and shattered warming records — does not reflect the long - term trend and may be explained by the oceans absorbing the majority of the extra heat trapped by greenhouse gases as well as the cooling contributions of volcanic eruptions.

As discussed above, if by «hiatus» or «pause» people mean a change to the long - term trends, then the evidence for this has always been weak (see also this comment by Mike).

Considered from this perspective, what we see is not so much a long term trend followed by a short term pause, from ca 1998 - present, but a short term (1979 - 2001) trend preceded and followed by periods of little to no trend.

Why hasn't the «pause» been debunked just by noting that it starts at a point nearly a decade's worth of warming above the trend in 1997?

The interruption of the alleged long - term trend, by the pause that is killing the cause, has had a devastating effect on their efforts to stampede the folks into drastic mitigation schemes.

But the pause can be disproved by picking the right ten year period to show a «warming trend.»

If IPCC are right, and the current «pause» will reverse itself at the end of this year, back to the observed warming trend (0.11 ºC per decade since 1990), it will take 27 years for this to happen, i.e. by 2041, or a bit sooner than predicted by IPCC in 1990.

Tom, If you accept that the pauses, previously occurring and the one at the present, are part of long period cycles whose long term average is related to the actual long term trend of temperature (rather than the far steeper slope of rise from just 1980 to 1999), you are admitting that the rise (from whatever cause) has a slope of closer to 0.4 C per century than the super inflated values of 2C to 6C per century claimed by the models and supporters of CAGW.

One thing that is amazing about the long pause in global warming is that it is on top of ample evidence, for example, «CRUTem3 has overstated U.S. warming trends during 1973 - 2011 by at least 50 %.»

How would the answer to this change if the pause was either A. an offset of GHG's and aerosols and other anthro cooling forcings, or B. an offset of GHG's by primarily (> 50 %) natural cooling trends?

Also, using the same cherry picking approach as used by «skeptics» for the recent time period, based on which they claim a «global warming stop» or «pause» because of lacking statistical significance of a warming trend, I even could claim a «pause» in global warming from 1979 to at least the end of 1997.

The century long trend is warming followed by a substantial pause (cooling) then warming again according to HADCRUT4 for a trend of 0.08 C per decade.

Your Met Office graphs clearly show the current «pause» (or downward trend) in global temperature, which the DM article by David Rose reported.

Matthew Marler, the pause does not show up in 30 - year trends because it was preceded by a sharp rise.

Jim D «Matthew Marler, the pause does not show up in 30 - year trends because it was preceded by a sharp rise.

, according to NASA scientists: «Coincidence, conspired to dampen warming trends» — Excuse number 10 for global warming «pause» or «standstill» — NASA's Gavin Schmidt & colleagues finds «that a combination of factors, by coincidence, conspired to dampen warming trends in the real world after about 1992» — Latest excuse for global temperature standstill mocked by skeptics: «Apparently, if you go back and rework all the forcings, taking into account new data estimates (add half a bottle of post-hoc figures) and «reanalyses» of old data (add a tablespoon of computer simulation) you can bridge the gap and explain away the pause.»

Has the «pause» (natural cooling) trend line now surpassed the length of the warming trend line originally used by CAGW movement?

It is a confirmation of the results also found by other studies before, with varying methodology, that the recent alleged «pause» is very likely, to a large degree, nothing more than just a temporary downward deviation from the median trend by chance, mostly due to the chaotic ENSO variability imprinting itself on the global temperature trends, like the «acceleration» between 1992 and 2007 (with a trend of about 0.25 - 0.3 deg.

On the other hand, the «pause» is being tested by analyzing whether the shorter - term temperature trend is a non-random deviation from the longer - term global warming trend, which itself, as we know, is statistically significant.

My purpose in making the comments was to see if there was any acknowledgement of what I see as a possible pattern of stepped warming caused by more or less regular pauses in the overall warming trend.

I do a variation of this by subtracting out the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) from the GMST profile, which effectively removes the pause / hiatus, leaving the underlying warming trend in its wake:

You can see this problem by creating «fake» long - memory datasets with a constant trend, then see how often the tests you have used detect a false statistically significant pause.

The GWPF: The UN's climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17 - year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain's Met Office, but said it would need to last «30 to 40 years at least» to break the long - term global warming trend.