Sentences with phrase «warm data point»

Despite monthly variability, the long - term trend due to global warming is clear and now punctuated by the unusually warm data point for February 2016.

One new warm data point raises all past blanks that gives a new higher average that raises all past blanks?

Not exact matches

Paleoclimate data point to a warm tropical ocean with a clear east - west temperature gradient during the warm climates of the Pliocene and Miocene.

The research adds one important data point to the ongoing question of how much methane, a greenhouse gas with a warming potential 25 times that of carbon dioxide, is emitted in the life cycle of natural gas production, transport and use.

The engineering «housekeeping» data that were retrieved were good: The lander was warm and receiving plenty of sunlight, which will increase up until 13 August, when 67P reached its closest point to the sun.

The people who are against global warming at this point have not looked at the data or care to.

Analyzing tens of thousands of data points, Schatz and Kucharik found the urban heat island effect peaked in summer, when downtown Madison averaged 7 degrees Fahrenheit warmer at night and 3 degrees warmer during the day when compared to rural Dane County.

But our main point does not depend on that and is robust: with any model and any reasonable data - derived forcing, the observed 20th Century warming trend can only be explained by anthropogenic greenhouse gases, while other factors can explain the shorter - term variations around this trend.

From his own research in chemical oceanography, along with data from a number of recent studies, Weber points out that some negative consequences of greenhouse gas emissions and warming «are manifesting faster than previously predicted,» including ocean acidification and oxygen loss, which are expected to affect «a large fraction of marine species if current trends continue unchecked.»

Re: 98 Satellite data: Some weeks ago I had a discussion with my American «Deny - aleban» nephew about global warming, and I came across some points of interest, which I think somebody should take a closer look into: I wrote this to him: https://www.dropbox.com/s/b9m66ktqf28mghs/Pil1.pdf?dl=0 and the point of interest starts at page 6, where I write about the 98 - thing.

The point at which a trend becomes clear within the average temperature data for a given region — known as the «time of emergence» — depends on when the source of the warming begins, how fast it happens and the amount of background «noise» obscuring the signal.

2016 is a «data point at the end of many data points that indicates» long - term warming, Deke

Climate - change skeptics have pointed to the emails as evidence that researchers were manipulating data to make global warming look more serious than it is.

The original cohort of KIPP students attended college at more than double the rate of their demographic peers: bracing, affirming, «It's Being Done» data points to warm the gap - closing hearts of ed reform hawks.

You could argue the data on 30's arctic warming is too sparse both spatially and temporally to be a realistic test of model performance, but then you start to weaken your point about «well characterized» global surface temperature.

My point, however, is that neither the trend data, nor the underlying theory give any support for the (90 %) certainty that most of the warming during the last century was anthropogenic.

Another important point that is often forgotten in the discussion: The data hole in the Arctic that explains part of the reduced warming trend (maybe even more than previously thought).

Re Fred Staples: «My point, however, is that neither the trend data, nor the underlying theory give any support for the (90 %) certainty that most of the warming during the last century was anthropogenic.»

The main point I was trying to suggest is for a limited measure of N / S 8 Deg., covered by the NOAA Triton / TAO buoy data sets, the visual indication since 1998 does not appear to support large scale warming in either heat content or isotherms.

The changes seen in the MSU 4 data (as even Roy Spencer has pointed out), are mainly due to ozone depletion (cooling) and volcanic eruptions (which warm the stratopshere because the extra aerosols absorb more heat locally).

I think Rasmus points out that model simulations where the available temp data is plugged into the models (i.e., the re-analysis) provide support for a warming Artic and GISS's interpolation / extrapolation method.

I do not think anyone, has claimed that they can tell the world's temperature anomolies from just 2 data points by one particularly warm or cool month.

If there is a hard data gap for this period, then Cato has done a positive service (for once) by pointing out that Warming Island might also have been disconnected from the land in this period... thus deflating the landmark's «poster child» status as an indication of unusual climate change.

I've seen other comments that point out the variability of the data points, in terms of uncertainties, and also the recent study about removing temporary negative and positive influences on temperature, showing a definite continuing warming trend.

We therefore repeated the calculation excluding this data point, using the 1910 — 2009 data instead, to see whether the temperature data prior to 2010 provide a reason to anticipate a new heat record.With a thus revised nonlinear trend, the expected number of heat records in the last decade reduces to 0.47, which implies a 78 % probability -LSB-(0.47 − 0.105) ∕ 0.47] that a new Moscow record is due to the warming trend.

A regional warm period and the LIA gives you less than two data points.

But obviously the two 1940 & 2013 data points prove that global warming is a fraud, Al Gore is fat and we should be preparing for a new ice age.

>... there are still ways of discovering the temperatures of past centuries,... tree rings... Core samples from drilling in ice fields... historical reconstruction... coral growth, isotope data from sea floor sediment, and insects, all of which point to a very warm climate in medieval times.

But our main point does not depend on that and is robust: with any model and any reasonable data - derived forcing, the observed 20th Century warming trend can only be explained by anthropogenic greenhouse gases, while other factors can explain the shorter - term variations around this trend.

Now Ferdinand can explain how this data is fraudulent (a little tough to do since the author is the leading scientist in the field) or how the record melting is really beside the point since we can be confident that Greenland isn't warming anyway.

it's interesting because he analyzed the data for the last decade or so and experimented with taking out the extremely warm 98 data point.

Point being, the more one examines the data and reads the studies, the more difficult it is to deny the significant human impact on global warming.

As a result, I hardly expect such visuals to shift many views, particularly given that responses to the science pointing to substantial, enduring greenhouse warming are shaped far more by divergent values, and feelings of risk, than the data.

Two days after the talk, Mr. Gore was sharply criticized for using the data to make a point about global warming by Roger A. Pielke, Jr., a political scientist focused on disaster trends and climate policy at the University of Colorado.

[Response: I would point out that if you look at the combined ocean and land data for the tropics (available at the GISS web site), the ocean (still part of the surface after all) shows significant and widespread warming.

I also pointed you to data for Arctic temperature which shows that it has warmed considerably over just the last decade, so that presently the Arctic is far warmer than it ever was in the 20th century.

The station where a bias or shift is know to exist in the data record may still be used in estimation of missing reports at nearby high quality stations for non-critical points (i.e not a recent, warm or cold value.

The so - called «warming skeptic» crowd seems quite pleased to accept an individual data point that seems to support their position, but they put their collective fingers in their ears for the bulk of the data.

-- tendency of the * planet to warm — The UAH data is v5.4, v5.5 limits the recent deviance — «no hidden either warming or cooling jumps» reads awkwardly — «But despite the fact that August 1997 was shamelessly cherry - picked by David Rose because it gives the lowest warming trend to the present of any point before 2000» — It was picked to show 15 years, not the lowest trend.

So as you can see, Muller is acknowledging that his claim of a declining trend is not supported by the data, but his main point, that claims of a warming - driven rise in tornado numbers are not justified, holds up.

As a comparison it took analysis of millions of data points collected over decades before climatologists were able to show that the atmosphere was warming.

But you can NOT support your claims with empirical data, because just as I pointed out, and you have failed to refute, there isn't a single peer reviewed paper that empirically shows that anthropogenic CO2 was the primary cause of the late 20th century warming like your climate alarmist religion claims.

We made the narrower point that, using correct principal components calculations on their data, they could not conclude that the 1990s were the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year.

Based on new research, federal scientists suggest that an apparent recent slowdown in global warming — a common talking point for many people who dispute human - caused climate change — did not occur, but only seemed so based on incorrect data.

It is very simple to explain: Since the ACC (anthropomorphic climate change, aka «Man - caused global warming») is a by a series of cherry - picked data points represented by constantly flawed and failing models, it was decided to remove the PC motivated opinion aspect.

Gallup's trend data show that Republicans have become less likely to accept the idea of human contributions to global warming over the past half - decade — the percentage believing that global warming is due more to «the effects of pollution from human activities» has declined by 10 percentage points, from 52 % in 2003 to 42 % in 2008.

Longer term measures are up, but most of the warming comes at the point the old metrics were spliced to the ARGO data, a real red flag to any serious data analyst.

The point I made is that at the time of the Mann paper (MBH98) in the satellite data there was no statistically significant warming between 1979 and the run up to the Super El Nino of 1997/98.

For a couple years I have been pointing out (along with Judith Curry and others) that the latest fad — which puts a lot of warming in recent data — is to extend high - latitude land weather station data far out over the Arctic Ocean.

Are you saying that the predicted global warming curve was obtained simply by cloning the data points of the observed warming curve?