Sentences with phrase «better paleoclimate data»

and give us better paleoclimate data (stop hiding it!!)

Not exact matches

The paleoclimate data, which included mainly changes in the oxygen isotopes of the calcium carbonate deposits, were then compared to similar records from other caves, ice cores, and sediment records as well as model predictions for water availability in the Middle East and west central Asia today and into the future.

A best estimate of climate sensitivity close to 3 °C for doubled CO2 has been inferred from paleoclimate data [51]--[52].

The detailed temporal and geographical response of the climate system to the rapid human - made change of climate forcings is not well - constrained by empirical data, because there is no faithful paleoclimate analog.

Alternatively, more direct observations of that radiative imbalance would be nice, or better theoretical and observational understanding of the water vapor and cloud feedbacks, or more paleoclimate data which can give us constraints on historical feedbacks, but my guess is that ocean heat content measurements would be the best near term bet for improving our understanding of this issue.

«In reality climate models have been tested on multicentennial time scales against paleoclimate data (see the most recent PMIP intercomparisons) and do reasonably well at simulating small Holocene climate variations, and even glacial - interglacial transitions.

Previous large natural oscillations are important to examine: however, 1) our data isn't as good with regards to external forcings or to historical temperatures, making attribution more difficult, 2) to the extent that we have solar and volcanic data, and paleoclimate temperature records, they are indeed fairly consistent with each other within their respective uncertainties, and 3) most mechanisms of internal variability would have different fingerprints: eg, shifting of warmth from the oceans to the atmosphere (but we see warming in both), or simultaneous warming of the troposphere and stratosphere, or shifts in global temperature associated with major ocean current shifts which for the most part haven't been seen.

We suggest that the best constraint on actual climate sensitivity is provided by paleoclimate data that imply a sensitivity 3 ± 1 °C for 2 CO2 [Hansen et al., 1984, 1993, 1997b; Hoffert and Covey, 1992].

The information derives in part from paleoclimate data, the record of how climate changed in the past, as well as from measurements being made now by satellites and in the field.

This network consists of scientists from 9 regional working groups, each of which collects and processes the best paleoclimate (past climate change) data from their respective region.

A best estimate of climate sensitivity close to 3 °C for doubled CO2 has been inferred from paleoclimate data [51]--[52].

Best we currently have for a comparable time using paleoclimate data is not the Eemian but much further back — to the Pliocene.

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

Really, it's because the paleoclimate data is pointing to the 3C per doubling of CO2 as being a pretty good number.

A proper thing to say is that paleoclimate data and global modeling need to go hand in hand to develop best understanding — almost everyone will agree with that.

Our best guide here is probably the paleoclimate data, which tends to indicate we're headed for mid-Pliocene to Miocene - like conditions as we go toward 560 ppm, which again, are about 3C or higher than pre-industrial temperatures.

Accomplishing this will require synthesizing multiple lines of scientific evidence, including simple and complex models, physical arguments, and paleoclimate data, as well as new modeling experiments to better explore the possibility of extreme scenarios.

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.»

I have always thought more weight should be given to the paleoclimate data than to climate models, on account of it being, well, data.

The problems with the paleoclimate data are well known and will not be summarized here; however, the issue of interest in this context is not the «blade» of the hockey stick, but rather the modes of variability and their magnitude seen in the stick handle.

When I published my paleoclimate reconstruction, it was specifically to show that leaving out tree rings gave a different result, but the criticism was that it wasn't «good» — but I didn't say the endeavor was even possible and clearly stated the limitations of the data.