Sentences with phrase «warming over that short period»

If you are trying to attribute warming over a short period, e.g. since 1980, detection requires that you explicitly consider the phasing of multidecadal natural internal variability during that period (e.g. AMO, PDO), not just the spectra over a long time period.

Not exact matches

Bowen and colleagues report that carbonate or limestone nodules in Wyoming sediment cores show the global warming episode 55.5 million to 55.3 million years ago involved the average annual release of a minimum of 0.9 petagrams (1.98 trillion pounds) of carbon to the atmosphere, and probably much more over shorter periods.

But the study looked at departures from average conditions over shorter time periods, and may not be a good indicator of how people will respond to sustained warming.

Over the past two million years, Earth has experienced long glacial periods separated by short, warmer intervals known as interglacials.

The noisy signal means that over a short period, the uncertainty of the warming trend is almost as large as the actual trend.

Ocean temperatures experience interannual variability and over the past 3 decades of global warming have had several short periods of cooling.

This can be followed by short periods of running over low jumps to maintain the benefits of the warm - up until it's show time.

GHG continue to increase in amounts in the atmosphere and as such, over time more warming inevitably continues though there may be breaks for short periods, and some cooling, as already discussed at great length regarding aerosols.

The planet may have been warmer recently, but the rate of increase, particularly over the last 10 - 20 years) has occurred so rapidly over such a short time period — this is what is not normal.

My question was, would not ~ 3.3 K sensitivity indicate that over that short period (27 years), CO2 warming exceeded natural variation?

As presented below, the temperature record of each of these groups (available at the URLs given at the bottom of this message) shows the same features: (i) a warming of about 0.9 °C (1.6 °F) over the past 150 years and (ii) natural variability with both short and long periods.

Over short periods they certainly do that but over periods of few decades it's likely that the warming effect of CO2 is stronOver short periods they certainly do that but over periods of few decades it's likely that the warming effect of CO2 is stronover periods of few decades it's likely that the warming effect of CO2 is stronger.

While aggressive emissions cutbacks of short - lived warming agents could halve the warming projected to 2050 and determined efforts to promote adaptation and enhance resilience could help reduce impact costs and damages, many regions will suffer greatly over this period.

You can cut that warming up as you have done into shorter periods during which there is no significant warming, but even if you do that, you have concede as you did that over the full period there was warming.

Temperatures fluctuate over short periods, but this lack of new warming is a surprise.

First, Happer mentions statistical significance, but global surface temperature trends are rarely if ever statistically significant (at a 95 % confidence level) over periods as short as a decade, even in the presence of an underlying long - term warming trend, because of the natural variability and noise in the climate system.

Your comment on error bars over short time periods makes sense, but the UAH record would tell us that 21st century total warming would be around 1C, if past trends continue (and that was the point I wanted to make).

This warming rate varies maybe from 0.5 to 0.7 °C per century depending on the point you start the linear fit, but your 1.5 °C / century rate is surely a pure fallacy, derived from observations over the specific [1970 — 2000] warming period, that is too short to be extrapolated to a full century.

A general acknowledgement that it has not warmed significantly over a period of over a decade, despite the fact that human CO2 emissions have continued unabated, but that this trend is too short to be statistically significant.

Your «standstill» here is just the fact that one can't statistically detect a warming trend in the mentioned temperature anomaly over the short time period of the recent decade.

In recent decades, much research on these topics has raised the questions of «tipping points» and «system flips,» where feedbacks in the system compound to rapidly cause massive reorganization of global climate over very short periods of time — a truncation or reorganization of the thermohaline circulation or of food web structures, for instance, caused by the loss of sea ice or warming ocean temperatures.

Using this kind of data in the calculation of the warming indicator makes the indicator worse, i.e. more noisy and less accurate over short or medium long periods.

A number of recent studies have found a strong link between peak human - induced global warming and cumulative carbon emissions from the start of the industrial revolution, while the link to emissions over shorter periods or in the years 2020 or 2050 is generally weaker.

Trends over short periods in noisy data are very noisy so that leads to huge errorbars on trend estimates and makes silly claims such as «global warming stopped in 1997» blatant falsehoods.

I find this assertion interesting, as it is often claimed that natural variability can mask global warming over short time periods.

Despite this higher cumulative total, the green curve has a higher peak warming than the yellow curve because its emissions are put into the atmosphere over a shorter time period.

It doesn't matter whether some of this organic material is now being revealed because of warming over a long period of time or because of unprecedented warmth over a short period of time.

What will reveal a reliable trend in the short - run will not be related to global warming, but where a trend can only be discerned over a much longer period and with much greater uncertainty is going reflect global warming.

And while the global warming trend spans many decades, the longest cooling trend over this period is 10 years, which proves that each was caused by short - term noise dampening the long - term trend.

The inclusion of the very warm 1998 El Nino year at the end (or start) of either of those two periods only has a significant effect on the trend over the shorter period.

In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say «how silly to judge climate change over such a short period».

This time period is too short to signify a change in the warming trend, as climate trends are measured over periods of decades, not years.12, 29,30,31,32 Such decade - long slowdowns or even reversals in trend have occurred before in the global instrumental record (for example, 1900 - 1910 and 1940 - 1950; see Figure 2.2), including three decade - long periods since 1970, each followed by a sharp temperature rise.33 Nonetheless, satellite and ocean observations indicate that the Earth - atmosphere climate system has continued to gain heat energy.34

«A reduction in the rate of warming (not a pause) is a result of short - term natural variability, ocean absorption of heat from the atmosphere, volcanic eruptions, a downward phase of the 11 - year solar cycle, and other impacts over a short time period,» Cleugh says.

Similar to the remaining warming trend in Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) after the short - term noise was filtered out, Lean and Rind found a very steady human - caused global warming trend from 1979 to 2005 (Figure 2d, green line), having contributed to more warming than has been observed over that period.

When you base your robust disbelief of the link between recent prodigious crop failures and realized warming on what you call the «relatively minor» global average mean anomaly you are demonstrating either less than full appreciation of what nine tenths of a degree could mean for regional weather over shorter periods, or what such weather could mean for agriculture.

«The team emphasized that clouds are particularly sensitive to subtle differences in surface warming patterns, and researchers must carefully account for such pattern effects when making inferences about cloud feedback and climate sensitivity from observations over short time periods.»

The sensitivity he then derives is projected back using the 0.8 deg C warming over the 20th C. However, this is ludicrous — the sensitivity in the recent period can't be more than say, 1 ppmv per 0.1 deg C. Projected back you would have say a 10 ppmv (max) change over the 20th C. Paleo - climate constraints demonstrate that CC feedback even on really long time scales is not more than 100 ppmv / 6 deg C (i.e. 16 ppmv / deg C), and over shorter time periods (i.e. Frank et al, 2010) it is more like 10 ppmv / deg C. Salby's sensitivity appears to be 10 times too large.

You write, in reference to it: «his choice of ocean heat uptake is based on taking a short term trend over a period in which the observed warming is markedly lower than the longer - term multidecadal value.»

The data and the statistical analysis does not provide the evidence that the so called «pause», a time period with a lower trend estimate than the longer - term trend estimate, was more than just a short - term fluctuation around the median warming trend, mostly due to short - term unforced internal variability in the Earth system (and some contribution from decreasing solar activity and increased reflecting aerosols in the atmosphere, counteracting the increased greenhose gas forcing to some degree), like the «acceleration» over the 16 - year period from 1992 to 2007 (e.g., UAH trend: 0.296 + / - 0.213 (2 sigma) deg.

Then we are told that natural factors have masked AGW over a recent short time period during which there was no observed warming yet close to one - third of all human CO2 emissions since industrialization have occurred.

While we are hesitant to extrapolate from very short data series (always a dubious procedure) it is entirely plausible that reduction in low cloud over the period could conservatively be estimated to have increased heating at Earth's surface by 5 - 10 Wm - 2, an amount more than sufficient to account for all the estimated warming over the period.

You can have a long period of cold air at the surface with little turbulent mixing and little energy transfer, followed by a short period of a warm surface and lots of turbulence and energy transfer - ending with a time average of warm over cold, but a time average of upward energy transfer.

Ocean temperatures experience interannual variability and over the past 3 decades of global warming have had several short periods of cooling... Argo takes measurements in the top 2000 metres of the ocean.

And it's a straw man because the mainstream science has been quite clear that 16 years is too short a period to expect to see the warming trend reliably over the normal «noise» of natural variability.

Over a shorter period, particularly one in which a natural cycle would have contributed to net warming, confidence would necessarily be lower.