Sentences with phrase «warming bias due»

And on the warming bias due to urbanization.

You have already decided that the surface record is tainted, that it has a warming bias due to whatever you are told may introduce a warming bias (such as AC exhausts or the people involved in making the record), and any and all evidence to the contrary is to be ignored.

Surface - based temperature histories of the globe contain a significant warming bias due to the urban heat island effect.

So, we can see that both the Unadjusted and the Partially adjusted datasets show a substantial warming bias due to poor station sitings.

Since land covers about 29 % of the Earth's surface, the warm bias due to this influence explains about 30 % of the IPCC estimate of global warming.

Just recently a data set from a site, in Texas I believe, was known to have a serious warm bias due to siting problems.

Not exact matches

A warm bias in sea surface temperature in most global climate models is due to a misrepresentation of the coastal separation position of the Gulf Stream, which extends too far north of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina.

They are probably biased due to emphasis on one part of the world such as the North Atlantic / Europe region... It is probably better to view the climate changes during the last 2,000 years in terms of cool and warm centuries in various parts of the world.

The increasing negative bias due to the increase in buoys tends to reduce this recent warm - ing.

In other words, the program is calculating the «urbanization bias» to be due to «urban cooling ``, and not «urban warming»!!!

Lyman and colleagues combined different ocean monitoring groups» data sets, taking into account different sources of bias and uncertainty — due to researchers using different instruments, the lack of instrument coverage in the ocean, and different ways of analyzing data used among research groups — and put forth a warming rate estimate for the upper ocean that it is more useful in climate models.

My suspicion is that there is a bias in interpretation of XBT data to maintain the idea that the warming of the upper ocean since 1976 is due to increased co2, and the rescaling of XBT data works to reduce the impact of the ARGO data, which shows a «slight cooling» according to Craig Loehle and Josh WIllis (before his arm was twisted), and only a very slight increase according to Levitus 2010.

The increasing negative bias due to the increase in buoys tends to reduce this recent warming.

Also, Dr. Kevin Trenberth had written a comment (Trenberth, 2004 — abstract; Google Scholar access) criticising the Kalnay & Cai, 2003 study (Abstract; Google Scholar access) which suggested that nearly half of the apparent warming trends in the U.S. were probably due to urbanization bias (or land use changes).

He agrees that there was some global warming over the 20th century, although he suspects much of the reported global warming is due to urbanization bias.

For example, since showing lights at night was generally not a good idea because of the submarine threat, maybe the measurements were biased more to daytime measurements, where the surface was generally warmer due to solar heating, than to average temperatures over the whole day which would be more typical of peacetime.

However after 1980, due to changes in instrumentation, it is not clear how much of the exaggerated rising trend is due to climatic factors (natural or CO2) or the result of a warming bias caused by new instruments.

As gases are evenly distributed in the atmosphere (ignoring very heavy or very light gases which biases the altitudinal distribution in the atmosphere), the potential for warming due to CO2 should be the same at all latitudes.

One can observe that nearly all of the increase in storms in the last half century seems to be due to this measurement bias, and not to, say, global warming:

Omission of these clouds is legitimate due to physical limitations of the models, but it completely misrepresents atmospheric mechanisms that plays to the warming bias.

An analysis of the residuals between the models and the data would probably show a skewed distribution that's most likely centered above zero due to the «warm bias» built into the models.

The available evidence indicates that, on the contrary, warming in this region has been slower than average, pointing to the bias due to sparse observations over it being in the opposite direction to that estimated from model simulations.

I hypothesize that it is actually the NOAA and HadCRUT4 data, which have some cool bias due to polar amplification of the surface warming in the Arctic and the smaller coverage of the Arctic regions by latter data sets.

If this is natural, so if a «warming regime» (the word choice may indicate bias, by the way) is changed unforced into a cooling regime you may very have proven that a positive feedback mechanism due to water vapor is impossible.

In comparing the observed temperature changes to the model simulations, they suggest that the recent surface warming slowdown is due to a large natural flucuation, and / or that some source of bias in climate models is making it difficult for them to simulate it.

In previous postings here at WUWT I have estimated the human contribution to net warming since 1880 at 0.2 ºC, the natural cycles and processes contribution over which we humans have no control at 0.3 ºC to 0.4 ºC, with the remainder of the supposed warming of 0.8 ºC due to data bias and cooking of the books by the official climate Team.