Sentences with phrase «warming paused more»

Not exact matches

«Global warming «pause» may last for 20 more years, and Arctic sea ice has already started to recover,» the Daily Mail says.

Some scientists have tied the phenomenon, called the global warming «pause,» to the deep oceans» taking up more heat.

However, colder temperatures can just pause the process and result in larval growth resuming when the air warms up.2 It's just one more reason why year - round heartworm protection is important.

By inventing the therm» pause» you guys are delaying the inevitable:» global» warming doesn't exist / H2O is regulating the climate, not CO2!The truth exist; truth is much more important than million believers: https://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/2014/07/12/cooling-earth/

It isn't a pause in global warming trend (GT Warming) which you need more than 10 years (around 30 will do fine) but a drift from the trend (which CAN be seen in 10 years, if barely) that added to the trend which hasn't paused and gives an * appearance * of the climate (30 year) trend of having swarming trend (GT Warming) which you need more than 10 years (around 30 will do fine) but a drift from the trend (which CAN be seen in 10 years, if barely) that added to the trend which hasn't paused and gives an * appearance * of the climate (30 year) trend of having sWarming) which you need more than 10 years (around 30 will do fine) but a drift from the trend (which CAN be seen in 10 years, if barely) that added to the trend which hasn't paused and gives an * appearance * of the climate (30 year) trend of having stopped.

I think the interesting question raised (though not definitively answered) by this line of work is the extent to which some of the pause in warming mid-century might have been more due to decadal ocean variability rather than aerosols than is commonly thought.

One more link for Phil — tamino's excellent (as usual) take down of the OZ version of a supposed warming «pause»:

It's too soon to say whether the current «pause» in warming is anything more than statistics being clouded by one unusual El Nino event, but we should be thinking now about possible explanations just in case something more interesting is going on.

I guess warming will necessarily have its ups and downs due to weather cycles but a long pause at this particular time would be devastating for both political and popular reaction and a quick rise afterwards would have more dire consequences than a steady rise for several reasons I will not go into now.

If you fill these data gaps using satellite measurements, the warming trend is more than doubled in the widely used HadCRUT4 data, and the much - discussed «warming pause» has virtually disappeared.

Just as a hypothetical example: If climate scientist will tell me that recent pause in global warming is due to the effect of an inactive sun (which is the reality as reported by following) http://www.spaceweather.com and that they will go back and improve their models to account for this, then I would be more inclined to believe their other claims... Instead the IPCC doubles down on their predictions and claim the future effects will be worst than they originally thought?

A The Hadcrut 4 figures that show a «pause» in warming lasting nearly 16 years are drawn from more than 3,000 measuring stations on land and at sea.

used in - filling to contradict other peer - reviewed research that determined a pause to global warming for the past 15 years or more.

About that time, WND columnist Lord Monckton wrote: «Worldwide, the liarists — growing ever more desperate as the Great Pause grows ever longer — are taking up the cry that The Models Were Right All Along But The Warming Has Gone Into Hiding, Really And Truly It Has, With Knobs On, Cross My Heart And Hope To Die, So There.

A recent scientific paper, Cowtan and Way (2014) used in - filling to contradict other peer - reviewed research that determined a pause to global warming for the past 15 years or more.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, the global - warming «pause» is about to enter its third decade, which suggests it may all be a bit more complicated than that.

The hiatus was rebutted in 2015 when Thomas Karl and his colleagues at NOAA published a paper in Science based on updated, more accurate data that demonstrated that there was no pause in global warming.

And they analyse the double standards used when discussing the so - called «pause» as compared to an equally long period of rapid warming, which in fact deviated more from the long - term trend than the recent phase of slower warming.

1) This kind of study continues to reinforce the notion that natural cyclical changes in ocean to atmosphere energy transfers are a very signficant potential reason for both the pause (as the ocean has retained more energy) and part of the big warming during the 1976 - 1998 period.

And the longer this «pause» in warming continues while GHG emissions continue unabated, the more «uncertain» become the model - based attribution estimates of IPCC and, hence, the projections for the future.

If warming had not paused 16 years ago I'd be singing a different tune but when I began to look into global warming in the early 2000's (after I retired and had more time for such indulgences) I noted that there was an approximate 60 year cycle and the warming side was nearing a statistical end.

Yet a purported global warming «pause» (more aptly named the «faux pause») is often used as an excuse by those who oppose taking action to curb climate change.

Of course that data is completely artificial so «60 year» pause in that data could be no more significant for a lack of warming than a 1 year pause in hadcrut4 would be.

The balance of evidence that the warming may continue to rise is from a theoretical perspective only, and yes I agree entirely that the longer the pause continues the more it says about climate sensitivity.

There Rose tells that warming stopped and there he puts «pause» in quotes hinting perhaps that it's not a pause but more permanent end for warming.

When that Arctic forcing is SST related, it would be lagged and could be out of phase meaning a global cooling or pause would produce stronger Arctic Winter Warming and stronger more frequent SSW events.

These include claiming that addressing climate change will keep the poor in «energy poverty»; citing the global warming «hiatus» or «pause» to dismiss concerns about climate change; pointing to changes in the climate hundreds or thousands of years ago to deny that the current warming is caused by humans; alleging that unmitigated climate change will be a good thing; disputing that climate change is accelerating sea level rise; and denying that climate change is making weather disasters more costly.

The longer we see a pause in warming surely the more sceptical you have to get.....

IF temperatures rise by < 2 C, as appears centrally likely based on current re-estimates of climate sensitivity using improved analysis of aerosols and taking into account the pause and the general lack of tropospheric warming, then it is more likely to be more expensive to mitigate.

Unfortunately using global average surface air temperatures as a measure of total warming ignores the fact that most of the heat (more than 93 %) goes into our oceans, which continue to warm without any sign of a pause, as you can see below.

The so - called «global warming pause» is one of many terms for surface temperatures rising more slowly in recent decades than in the past, despite greenhouse gas emissions continuing to grow.

So if going forward no warming takes place up to around 2030, then the solar - climate connection would have passed a very strong test, as the main alternative hypothesis (CO ₂) did not predict the pause and has consistently predicted more warming.

But, you're making the same claim that this is the cause of the pause, when it's more likely that a positive AMO and PDO both simultaneously warmed the Northern Hemisphere at the end of the 20th century, the History of the late 30's had the same high temps (and melted Arctic), which were followed by cold PDO phase.

While the AMO has not changed much in the past 10 years, the strong increase in North Atlantic temperatures between 1970 and 2000 may have contributed to the rapid rise in global temperatures over that period, and the leveling - out of the AMO may help make the observed pause in warming more likely.

Most important, they all make claims of a «pause» or «hiatus» in global warming look even more silly than we already knew they were.

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.

For years, the more dimwitted of the climate denialists have been yammering on about a pause in global warming.

Moreover, even many of the leading individuals and institutions that have been promoting climate - change alarmism admit that, in defiance of their predictions, there has been more than a decade - and - a-half «pause» in the previous warming trend.

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.

To make it even more interesting, many «skeptics» also argue that none of the temperature records showing climate change are valid, even as they argue that those same temperature records show a «pause in global warming.»

I think the same «statistics» that say «we might be experiencing a pause» say we might be going to H... in a hand basket more quickly then the most rabid «warmest» ever preached.

I hope that we may well be nearing the brink of having within humanity's grasp, not only strong inferences about the recent, relative decadal reduction in the rate of surface warming (compared with the final quarter of Century 20), but also with a more compelling story about the true pause which stretched across the middle of that century.

The simpler and more logical explanation for the warming pause is the climate models are wrong.

Instead of publicly expressing their views, a group of parliamentarians said skeptics should parrot the imploding official narrative: The notion that global warming, which even leading alarmists admit has been on «pause» for 17 years in defiance of every UN climate model, is caused by human activities and requires planetary carbon taxes and more government control.