Sentences with phrase «what paleoclimate»

What the paleoclimate information does indicate is that the warmth of the past 50 years is not outside the range of natural variability and is no cause for alarm.

Sure, it would take a lot of computing power to go from 100 - year to 10,000 year runs, constrained by what paleoclimate data we have.

(My quick comment was about what paleoclimate peer reviewers do though.)

What paleoclimate and oceanography researchers know of the mechanisms underlying such a climate «flip» suggests that global warming could start one in several different ways.

Not exact matches

Evidence of these changes is found in many parts of the Southern Hemisphere and in different paleoclimate archives, but what prompted these changes has remained largely unexplained.

The match of his model to actual paleoclimate is impressive, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's right — especially since Huybers made no suggestion about what the physical mechanism is which brings this about.

One issue that I have wondered about for some time is to what extent the paleoclimate record supports the distinction between slow - feedback and fast - feedback climate sensitivity.

What I'm not seeing is a strongly negative feedback supported in the literature, and once again, if you adopt that idea, you've got to explain paleoclimate.

The paleoclimate record (8.2 kyr, and earlier «large lake collapses») shows a dramatic drop in surface temperatures for a substantial period of time when the ocean circulation shuts off or changes, but is that actually what would be expected under these warming conditions?

What about the feedbacks that are not normally well represented by ECS and normally fall into the Earth System Climate Sensitivity, stuff like the Arctic Ice cover, which now has trends over decades closer to what was seen on centuries in paleoclimWhat about the feedbacks that are not normally well represented by ECS and normally fall into the Earth System Climate Sensitivity, stuff like the Arctic Ice cover, which now has trends over decades closer to what was seen on centuries in paleoclimwhat was seen on centuries in paleoclimate:

What's more, no big missing link exists in paleoclimate that demand we be searching for such a process.

It is conventional honest serious scientists that are already doing what JC wants, and it is the nature of paleoclimate studies the proxy reconstructions will never have the level of credibility of a direct measurement.

One thing I keep wondering about (in relationship to storms, drought, in particular) is how paleoclimate work so often resets the bar on what is thought of as rare or extreme.

What is true is that there is very very strong evidence from paleoclimate data (deep sea sediment cores) for changes in the distribution of chemical tracers that must reflect changes in the deep circulation in the Atlantic.

However, given what we are seeing in terms of current climate trends and the paleoclimate record, such a name would seem to be more a matter of wishful thinking than an apt description of the processes involved.

The big question for Hansen is of course how quickly these long - term feedbacks will take to manifest themselves, and given what we are now seeing as well as the paleoclimate record itself, it seem that the answer is sooner rather than later.

Well guess what - paleoclimate reconstruction is a rather specialized, and tiny, field.

Drawing on improved paleoclimate records and current global observations has prompted the authors to reach new conclusions about what constitutes a safe level of CO2.

But GISP2 doesn't take into account the full paleoclimate record, so I find it highly suspect that you are not inquisitive enough to get a full read on what is available in current literature.

This approximation is basically what Nic Lewis does for his estimates and what James Hansen does for his Paleoclimate estimates (actually pretty much all Paleoclimate estimates use this approximation).

The paleoclimate is especially an area of uncertainty — which is not what I said but what I quoted from the NAS.

One has only to look at the recent exchange of papers in Annals of Statistics (McShane and Wyner) on paleoclimate or the recent withdrawl of a paper claiming an «Australian hockey stick» caused by a blogger (Steve McIntyre) who had the gaul to approach the results skeptically to see what the problem is here.

-- Perhaps to someone unfamiliar with what «instrument record» means or the immense paleoclimate history of the Earth.

As a reviewer for AR4, it was my position that, if the paleoclimate issues were not relevant to the policy issues, then the Paleoclimate (and the hockey stick discussion) should be deleted from AR4 so that people could focus on what were the «real»paleoclimate issues were not relevant to the policy issues, then the Paleoclimate (and the hockey stick discussion) should be deleted from AR4 so that people could focus on what were the «real»Paleoclimate (and the hockey stick discussion) should be deleted from AR4 so that people could focus on what were the «real» arguments.

Looking at the paleoclimate record might be one excellent way of seeing what this additional CO2 might do to the climate system.

Since it is not possible to go back in time to see what climates were like, scientists use imprints created during past climate, known as proxies, to interpret paleoclimate.

The dynamic range is much better in the paleoclimate data and that is what enables us to actually fight off the uncertainty (monster).

The Archer - Schmidt view of CO2 hanging around for centuries seems based on a model of residence time having what I see as at least three problems: fallacious appeal to paleoclimate, irrelevance of average residence time per molecule, and neglect of disequilibrium coefficients.

As where Marcott et al went wrong as climate scientists, when they used paleoclimate data of long millenia time scales in natural variability, with the short decadal time scale (weather) in natural variability and claim to predict the future of where the pendulum of climatology will be in the future, when actually showing that they are confused, what they are representing as evidence of the future climate is in fact their total misunderstanding of climatology and the complex chaotic circumstances that influence the real world.

NIPCC intermediate report just provides a synthesis of recent (2009 and 2010) paleoclimate reconstructions, confirming scientifically what historical records had taught us for years (and even decades) i.e. that MWP was a global warm period...

there is no credible way for the paleoclimate to be very different from what has been described so far.

Lets see what Michael Mann, lead Author for IPCC, member of the Team, author of many paleoclimate articles, says:

If one has a paleoclimate series of dubious accuracy plotted against a temperature time series of dubious accuracy — what exactly was shown by all this effort?

* Paleoclimate reconstructions stretching far back in time using proxies that don't capture the fine grain of the annual natural variability - can be somewhat inaccurate representations of what has actually historically occurred in the real physical world.

Actually, there is not a good open access option for most of my work, as I have grumbled before, what with the EGU climate journal focussing specifically on paleoclimate.

The paleoclimate experts know what fast is.

Jim D, if you and others like you aren't willing to do what must be done to greatly increase the price of carbon, then all your talk of ice sheet melting, sea level rise, climate tipping points, global temperature trends, the earth's paleoclimate history, and climate model projections — all of that talk is mere Kabuke theater.

Anyone who would like to discuss with me the facts revealed by the Wegman report that there is a paleoclimate mafia controlling what gets published, that they have systematically published erroneous interpretations of paleoclimatic data, and that almost any paleoclimatic temperature profile can be obtained depending on how you manipulate the proxies, just email me at drdrapp [at] earthlink.net and tell me your name, address, professional affiliation, and recent work you have done climate science.

PS — I'd be very interested to hear a bit more about what you are referring to when you say a «procedure of working out from good data has much to recommend to paleoclimate.»

This is a significant fraction of what has been ejected by volcanoes in paleoclimate changes, and will lead to significant warming as those events did.

What is new is that paleoclimate finally gets a chapter of its own (but one that, understandably, concentrates more on the well - documented Pleistocene than on deep time).

Evidently, what prompts this article is the amount of attention being given to paleoclimate data in the forthcoming AR4 report of the IPCC.

For clarification, this is not an argument about what ESS is, nor is it a claim that we should ignore the long - term responses of the system to current forcing, nor does it mean that paleoclimate has nothing to tell us about future changes (au contraire!).

The match of his model to actual paleoclimate is impressive, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's right — especially since Huybers made no suggestion about what the physical mechanism is which brings this about.

The MBH98 and MBH99 papers are focused on paleoclimate temperature reconstruction and conclusions therein focus on what appear to be a rapid rise in global temperature during the 1990s when compared with temperatures of the previous millennium.

Honestly, I do not think this a big deal, and certainly not a cause for litigation — but what is not possible in paleoclimate science these days?

Physical science is highly constrained by what is known about energy budgets, paleoclimate and radiative transfer in gases, and alternate hypotheses are hard to come by as the skeptics well know by now after a decade of trying.