Sentences with phrase «between natural variability»

My assessment is that it is likely (> 66 % likelihood) that there is 50 - 50 split between natural variability and anthropogenic forcing, with + / -20 % range.

JC's attribution assessment: likely (> 66 % likelihood) 50 - 50 split between natural variability and anthropogenic forcing, with + / -20 % range.

(«Approximately» because I doubt that there are the necessary statistics available to make rigorous quantitative comparisons between the natural variability seen in the models and that seen in reality.)

The issue is the proportionality between natural variability and AGW.

One possible assumption is that the relationship between natural variability and extreme events could be different in the future.

If you want to know what I think about the science of climate change, then you should read what Mojib (if my name weren't Mojib Latif it would be global warming) Latif has to say about the relationship between natural variability and long - term climate change (which includes, very prominently, the discussion about natural variability «swamping» mean surface temperature on a short - term basis).

Thank you, Theo, on the insightful distinction between natural variability and internal variability.

Not exact matches

While you still find only two varieties of natural peanut butter, creamy and crunchy, you will notice much more variability between different brands and manufacturers.

From their analysis, which is not based on omic technologies but represents the most comprehensive compilation of GE crop composition data to date, the authors conclude that compositional differences between GE varieties and their conventional comparators are «encompassed within the natural variability of the conventional crop and that the composition of GM and conventional crops can not be disaggregated.»

Record - breaking rainfall in southeastern Australia between July and September, for example, was due to natural variability, one study found.

Ultimately, in forests not otherwise limited by energy or nutrients variability in moisture availability with natural and climate oscillations may drive establishment success between years (League and Veblen 2006), with indirect disturbance effects (e.g., fires, landslides, insect outbreaks, and pathogen attacks) greatly affecting long - term recruitment success (Clark et al. 2016).

His research interests include studying the interactions between El Niño / Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the monsoons of Asia; identifying possible effects on global climate of changing human factors, such as carbon dioxide, as well as natural factors, such as solar variability; and quantifying possible future changes of weather and climate extremes in a warmer climate.

This study does suggest a closer link between CO2 and temperature, but if you accept this study you have to also accept that the CO2 concentrations we are seeing today are not so far outside the bounds of natural variability.

Natural variability is primarily controlled by exchange of heat between the ocean and the atmosphere, but it is an extremely complex process and if we want to develop better near - term predictive skills — which is looking not at what's going to happen in the next three months but what's going to happen between the next year and 10 years or 20 years or so — if we want to expand our understanding there, we have to understand natural variability better than we doNatural variability is primarily controlled by exchange of heat between the ocean and the atmosphere, but it is an extremely complex process and if we want to develop better near - term predictive skills — which is looking not at what's going to happen in the next three months but what's going to happen between the next year and 10 years or 20 years or so — if we want to expand our understanding there, we have to understand natural variability better than we donatural variability better than we do today.

The differences between the ensemble members, reflecting natural variability, yield vastly different extrapolated trajectories.

He doesn't understand the relationship between emmissions and concentrations, but aside from that we know very well that the CO2 rise is due to anthropogenic activities, and we also know the magnitude and rate of the CO2 rise is far outside the bounds of natural variability.

I'm certainly repeating others in this thread (& I've said it elsewhere before) when I say that the difference between CCSM4 AR4 & PIOMAS outputs is surely far too large to be dismissed as «natural variability» or for such variability to be even a major reason for such a large difference.

But tremendous natural variability occurs in the large - scale atmospheric circulation during all seasons, and even in summer the links between Arctic warming and mid-latitude weather are not supported by other observational studies.

Further, since you agree with us that the warming rate during the next several decades will be below 0.325 ºC / decade, then, as I have pointed out, due to the level of natural variability, a 20 - yr time period is too short to really differentiate between your beliefs and ours (if there exist any).

Indeed, there's a world of difference between citing one paper that has done something that MIGHT rebalance the global mean temperature data — as Joe's post suggests — and then assuming that the problem is fixed and the indicator remains the first best only way to measure global goals despite the fact that natural variability in the global mean surface temperature will also make that a sluggish measure.

The points that are further confusing is the contradiction between her insistence (without any quantitative support) that there should be a 50 - 50 split for since 1950 while at the same time insisting that for 1910 - 1940 it has to be either wholly internal variability or natural forcing (again without any quantitative support).

-- I calculated potential intensity trends over the period 1980 - 2012 & The disparity between the reanalysis potential intensity trends over the past 30 years and the projected trends over this century suggests either that most of the observed increase in potential intensity (and actual intensity of high category storms) is due to natural variability,....»

# 15 John P. Reisman says: vukcevic you basically don't understand the difference between climate, natural variability, weather, and of course human influenced climate forcing.

That in turn may indicate you basically don't understand the difference between climate, natural variability, weather, and of course human influenced climate forcing.

Just to clarify: It is important to distinguish between attributing the differences between models (with anthropogenic forcing) and observations to natural variability and attributing the 33 + year decline in sea ice to anthropogenic forcing.

Natural climate variability — including the periodic swings between El Nià ± o and La Nià ± a conditions in the Pacific — will sometimes overshadow global warming's influence on hurricanes, Trenberth said.

Attribution of the observed warming to anthropogenic forcing is easier at larger scales because averaging over larger regions reduces the natural variability more, making it easier to distinguish between changes expected from different external forcings, or between external forcing and climate variability.

The leveling off between the 1940s and 1970s may be explained by natural variability and possibly by cooling effects of aerosols generated by the rapid economic growth after World War II.

If the IPCC attributes to the pause to natural internal variability, then this begs the question as to what extent the warming between 1975 and 2000 can also be explained by natural internal variability.

If the recent warming hiatus is caused by natural variability, then this raises the question as to what extent the warming between 1975 and 2000 can also be explained by natural climate variability.

By comparing modelled and observed changes in such indices, which include the global mean surface temperature, the land - ocean temperature contrast, the temperature contrast between the NH and SH, the mean magnitude of the annual cycle in temperature over land and the mean meridional temperature gradient in the NH mid-latitudes, Braganza et al. (2004) estimate that anthropogenic forcing accounts for almost all of the warming observed between 1946 and 1995 whereas warming between 1896 and 1945 is explained by a combination of anthropogenic and natural forcing and internal variability.

JC said» If the recent warming hiatus is caused by natural variability, then this raises the question as to what extent the warming between 1975 and 2000 can also be explained by natural climate variability.»

The bottom line is that, despite short - term natural climatic variability, there is a fairly straightforward relationship between average global temperatures and the concentration in the atmosphere of the critical greenhouse gases — primarily carbon dioxide.

This is the type of variability that comes from natural interactions between the ocean and the atmosphere (i.e., that due to phenomena like the El - Nino / Southern Oscillation or perhaps the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation).

The identification of the link between these features as part of «natural variability» is fascinating.

Natural variability might modulate the flow of energy between parts of the system, such as from ocean to atmosphere, but the «pace of climate warming», as in the general gain in energy (or loss of energy) of the entire climate system, can only be dictated by some external forcing, such as somthing that changes the amount of solar radiation reaching the surface, volcanoes, or changes in GH gas concentrations.

Natural internal variability is small relative to forced variability and nonlinear interactions between forcings and responses are small; hence 20thcentury climate variability is explained by external forcing.

Compare the temperature increase between 1975 - 1998 natural internal variability associated accounting for significantly MORE than half of the observed warming.

This synergistic relationship between anthropogenic climate change and natural climate variability is critical for consideration of observed warm season climate change in the US.

(Note: the combination of natural internal variability plus solar variability remains a plausible explanation for most of the 20th century variability; the issue of nonlinear interactions between forcings and responses has not been convincingly explored.)

Day et al. put the natural variability contribution between 5 % and 30 % from 1979 to 2010, for example.

So you (JC) believe that the evidence is * equally * divided between the proposition that natural variability will outweigh anthropogenic warming in the 21st century and the reverse?

Very likely denotes a probability of anthropogenic influence between 90 and 99 % (lets pick 95 %) and I interpret most to mean between 51 and 90 % (lets pick 70 %), with the remainder (30 %) associated with natural variability.

We already know what the natural variability looked like in the 20th century, no big surprises but still an unexplained increase between 1910 - 1940 and decrease between 1940 and 1970.

Mr Jarraud said: «Natural climate variability, caused in part by interactions between our atmosphere and oceans — as evidenced by El Niño and La Niña events — means that some years are cooler than others.

Many climate trends are small and require careful analysis of long time series of sufficient length, consistency, and continuity to distinguish between the natural long - term climate variability and any small, persistent climate changes.

Further, our temperature reconstructions, within age uncertainty, can be well correlated with solar irradiance changes, suggesting a possible link between solar forcing and natural climate variability, at least on the northern Tibetan Plateau.»

In the years both before and after the model run, the natural variability is as represented in the models, plus the difference between measured temperature and model forecast temperature.

Will Hobbs from the University of Tasmania and NASA's Joshua Willis have confirmed that ocean warming calculated from data collected by the HMS Challenger between 1873 — 1876 couldn't realistically be from natural variability alone, pointing strongly to humanity's role.

Even the consensus would be spread all over the placed if asked to give a precise percentage between these three factors: man - made vs natural forcing and natural variability.