Sentences with phrase «by natural variability in»

I'd just like to make sure I understood your post correctly: the common answer to the «contrarian talking point» that much of the observed recent climate change could just be caused by natural variability in the climate system is that this would imply, broadly speaking, heat being moved from the oceans to the atmosphere — whereas we observe the opposite, oceans storing heat.

For decades to come, we're locked into generally rising temperatures, with shorter - term temperature shifts * — up or down — shaped most by natural variability in the system (as with the recent plateau in temperatures).

Not exact matches

Some experiments were considered quirky by 19th century standards, but the work provided data supporting Darwin's notions about trait variability in a population and how natural selection drives changes in populations over time.

«Although this widening is considered a «natural» mode of climate variability, implying tropical widening is primarily driven by internal dynamics of the climate system, we also show that anthropogenic pollutants have driven trends in the PDO,» Allen said.

Subjects in the issue include the importance of natural selection, the sources of genetic variability, human evolution's past and future, pop evolutionary psychology, everyday applications of evolutionary theory, the science of the game Spore, and the ongoing threat to science education posed by creationist activists.

This record also seems to show that the rise in methane levels in the last 10,000 years — thought by some to be a result of human agriculture — could simply be the result of natural variability in the decomposition of plants in boreal forests and wetlands.

«Regional changes are mostly due to natural variability but on top of that we see this pronounced overall weakening in summer storm activity,» says co-author Dim Coumou, «This is also something projected by climate models under future emission scenarios.

«Communicating the reality of climate change to the public is hampered by the large natural variability of weather and climate,» the Goddard scientists wrote in the draft, which was circulated by Hansen Friday evening and posted on the ClimateProgress.org blog shortly after.

These variations originate primarily from fluctuations in carbon uptake by land ecosystems driven by the natural variability of the climate system, rather than by oceans or from changes in the levels of human - made carbon emissions.

Such offices shall engage in cooperative research, development, and demonstration projects with the academic community, State Climate Offices, Regional Climate Offices, and other users and stakeholders on climate products, technologies, models, and other tools to improve understanding and forecasting of regional and local climate variability and change and the effects on economic activities, natural resources, and water availability, and other effects on communities, to facilitate development of regional and local adaptation plans to respond to climate variability and change, and any other needed research identified by the Under Secretary or the Advisory Committee.

This natural variability in the brain response was also reflected by the EEG activity and the researchers suggest that this signal might help the brain make the transition from processing stimuli back to their internal thoughts in different ways.

Because of large natural variability, the first approach results in an outcome suggesting that it is appropriate to conclude that there is no increase in precipitation by human influences, although the correct interpretation is that there is simply not enough evidence (not a long enough time series).

This analysis by Sedláček & Knutti (2012) does not attempt to connect modelled and observed ocean warming patterns with human activity, but does demonstrate that natural variability is incompatible with the warming in the 20th century simulations, and with historical observations.

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).

These analyses, whilst not disproving the anthropogenic global warming theory, do show that the climate we are in today is not unusual in recent history, and therefore the possibility of natural variability causing the warming can not be ruled out, as it seemingly has been by many «independent» scientists, and the IPCC.

Average winter precipitation has decreased by 0.9 inches (2.3 cm), which can mostly be attributed to natural variability and an increase in El Niño events, especially in the western and central parts of the state.

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.

However, satellite observations are notably cooler in the lower troposphere than predicted by climate models, and the research team in their paper acknowledge this, remarking: «One area of concern is that on average... simulations underestimate the observed lower stratospheric cooling and overestimate tropospheric warming... These differences must be due to some combination of errors in model forcings, model response errors, residual observational inhomogeneities, and an unusual manifestation of natural internal variability in the observations.»

There is evidence in satellite and radiosonde data and in observational data for poleward expansion of the tropical circulation by as much as a few degrees of latitude since the 1970s [34]--[35], but natural variability may have contributed to that expansion [36].

In addition, both internal variability and aerosol forcing are likely to affect tropical storms in large part though changes in ocean temperature gradients (thereby changing ITCZ position and vertical shear), while greenhouse gases likely exert their influence by more uniformly changing ocean and tropospheric temperatures, so the physics of the problem may suggest this decomposition as more natural as welIn addition, both internal variability and aerosol forcing are likely to affect tropical storms in large part though changes in ocean temperature gradients (thereby changing ITCZ position and vertical shear), while greenhouse gases likely exert their influence by more uniformly changing ocean and tropospheric temperatures, so the physics of the problem may suggest this decomposition as more natural as welin large part though changes in ocean temperature gradients (thereby changing ITCZ position and vertical shear), while greenhouse gases likely exert their influence by more uniformly changing ocean and tropospheric temperatures, so the physics of the problem may suggest this decomposition as more natural as welin ocean temperature gradients (thereby changing ITCZ position and vertical shear), while greenhouse gases likely exert their influence by more uniformly changing ocean and tropospheric temperatures, so the physics of the problem may suggest this decomposition as more natural as well.

In contrast to the FCI's standard, the CTCA Standard, designed by professional biologists, reflects adesire to maintain the breed's natural genetic soundness bypreserving and protecting a controlled amount of variability.

For one thing, its first manifestations — the baby steps — can be obscured by all the natural variability in the natural world.

One advantage of the theory that there has been a warming trend occasionally obscured in the short term by natural variability is that we have a mechanism that explains why there should be a warming trend (CO2) and mechanisms for explaining the variability (IIRC ENSO is responsible for quite a lot of it).

He writes: «the data of landfalling hurricanes in the U.S. is less than a tenth of a percent of the data for global hurricanes over their whole lifetimes», and shows that from such a small subset of data and given the amount of natural variability, there is no way you would be able to detect a trend by now.

The probability calculation Almuth proposes is tailor made for influencing the public towards «greater» action, while a calculation that looked at say the impact of Kyoto in 2020 on the wind speed of a second Katrina, compared that to the variability introduced by natural cycles and emphasised that this was based on models, while there had been no conclusive trend in tropical cyclone wind speeds so far, would be made with a different kind of advocacy in mind (Pielke et al's paper is very clearly going in this direction).

Thus, given natural variability, 20 years is only enough time to start tell apart (in a statistical significant fashion) trends that are at least disparate by about 0.15 ºC / decade.

By looking at the signatures of climate change in precipitation intensity and comparing that to the internal variability and the observation, the researchers conclude that the probability of intense precipitation on any given day has increased by 7 percent over the last 50 years — well outside the bounds of natural variabilitBy looking at the signatures of climate change in precipitation intensity and comparing that to the internal variability and the observation, the researchers conclude that the probability of intense precipitation on any given day has increased by 7 percent over the last 50 years — well outside the bounds of natural variabilitby 7 percent over the last 50 years — well outside the bounds of natural variability.

The insufficient observational coverage has also been noted by the IPCC AR4 and by Gillett et al. (Nature Geoscience, 2008), who argue that the observed warming in the Arctic and Antarctic are not consistent with internal climate variability and natural forcings alone, but are directly attributable to increased GHG levels.

Natural climate variability refers to the variation in climate parameters caused by nonhuman forces.

Doing it that way would just be less sophisticated and informative, because in some places 1.8 degrees would just by nature of the local natural variability be exceeded much more easily than in some other places, so using that kind of threshold would not be as «fair» and even - handed as the 3 - sigma threshold.

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.

It seems oddly tendentious to deny for instance the role of natural variability on the basis that some of the recent changes in these long standing climate patterns may be influenced by greenhouse gases.

The problem with your statement is that 1) 1998 was a rather large outlier caused by the strongest El Nino on record, meaning the underlying trend continued unperturbed right past 1998 until ~ 2002 in that graph (the Mark I eyeball at work again), and 2) 2002 to present (and even 1998 to present) does not constitute the long term trend as 12 (or 17) years is far short of the ~ 30 * years needed to detect the underlying trend from the year to year noise of natural variability.

It's painfully easy to paint oneself logically into a corner by arguing that either (i) vigorous natural variability caused 20th century climate change, but the climate is insensitive to radiative forcing by greenhouse gases; or (ii) the climate is very sensitive to greenhouse gases, but we still are able to attribute details of inter-decadal wiggles in the global mean temperature to a specific forcing cause.

An important question, of course, is whether the changes in the subpolar Atlantic are caused by humans or are part of natural variability.

My experience with extremes and detection and attribution of an anthropogenic signal in those is that only by averaging the behavior of extremes (both temperature extremes and precipitation extremes) over large geographical areas (continental or barely sub-continental) we have been able to see something outside of natural variability.

But sure, in a single location it will be swamped by natural variability, or «weather».

Global temperature has in recent years increased more slowly than before, but this is within the normal natural variability that always exists, and also within the range of predictions by climate models — even despite some cool forcing factors such as the deep solar minimum not included in the models.

Under the assumption that the control runs have reasonable natural variability, the influence of natural variability has been addressed, since the probability that a 150 yr trend this large would appear by chance in the control run is less than 1 %.

I think we still need to be open to the possibility that natural variability has played a role in the recent warming of the Arctic, but with each year that goes by without a return to the pre-2007 summertime Arctic climatology it seems more likely that the remarkable change that we have witnessed will prove to be irreversible.

Weapon testing by the USSR in the Arctic during October 1961 resulted in heavy snowfalls in the UK in the winter of 1962/3 but it is difficult to draw conclusions since natural variability, the solar cycle and El & La Nini can also affect the global and local temperatures.

[I] n the 17 August Nature Climate Change study, a team led by [Kevin] Trenberth suggests that natural variability in the Pacific explains more than half of the hiatus.

The available data are insufficient to say if the changes in O2 are caused by natural variability or are trends that are likely to persist in the future, but they do indicate that large - scale changes in ocean physics influence natural biogeochemical cycles, and thus the cycles of O2 and CO2 are likely to undergo changes if ocean circulation changes persist in the future.

In my opinion, there almost is certainly more natural low - period variability than was originally suggested by MBH.

Natural variability is now widely accepted as making a significant contribution and our argument for a lowered climate sensitivity — which would indicate that existing climate models are not reliable tools for projecting future climate trends — is buoyed by accumulating evidence and is gaining support in the broader climate research community.

The last year or so, driven by the unexplained hiatus in warming, we have seen substantially more attention being given to research on natural climate variability.

Skeptical101 # 14 My interpretation and synopsis of the considerable technical detail and references provided by Tom Curtis # 15 & One Planet # 16, # 17 is that your»... not use it as an argument to support AGW» is correct if used over periods in which short term natural variability influences the trend strongly (< 30 years was mentioned sometimes) and, in particular, the models are not able to predict the ENSO conditions at all well.

In the TAR (Mitchell et al., 2001), detection of climate change is the process of demonstrating that an observed change is significantly different (in a statistical sense) from what can be explained by natural variabilitIn the TAR (Mitchell et al., 2001), detection of climate change is the process of demonstrating that an observed change is significantly different (in a statistical sense) from what can be explained by natural variabilitin a statistical sense) from what can be explained by natural variability.

In my earlier posting, I tried to make the distinction that global climate change (all that is changing in the climate system) can be separated into: (1) the global warming component that is driven primarily by the increase in greenhouse gases, and (2) the natural (externally unforced) variability of the climate system consisting of temperature fluctuations about an equilibrium reference point, which therefore do not contribute to the long - term trenIn my earlier posting, I tried to make the distinction that global climate change (all that is changing in the climate system) can be separated into: (1) the global warming component that is driven primarily by the increase in greenhouse gases, and (2) the natural (externally unforced) variability of the climate system consisting of temperature fluctuations about an equilibrium reference point, which therefore do not contribute to the long - term trenin the climate system) can be separated into: (1) the global warming component that is driven primarily by the increase in greenhouse gases, and (2) the natural (externally unforced) variability of the climate system consisting of temperature fluctuations about an equilibrium reference point, which therefore do not contribute to the long - term trenin greenhouse gases, and (2) the natural (externally unforced) variability of the climate system consisting of temperature fluctuations about an equilibrium reference point, which therefore do not contribute to the long - term trend.

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 variabilitBy 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 variabilitby a combination of anthropogenic and natural forcing and internal variability.