Sentences with phrase «data noise of natural variability»

Maybe the natural sources and sinks really do dominate the 400 ppm global CO2 balance and mankind's 2 ppm «imbalance» is lost even deeper in the data noise of natural variability.

Not exact matches

While this methodology doesn't eliminate your point that the trends from different periods in the observed record (or from different observed datasets) fall at various locations within our model - derived 95 % confidence range (clearly they do), it does provide justification for using the most recent data to show that sometimes (including currently), the observed trends (which obviously contain natural variability, or, weather noise) push the envelop of model trends (which also contain weather noise).

Here's his response: «A convincing greenhouse gas - driven change has not emerged in the data so far, in my view, and may well be «in the noise» due to both large natural variability (compared to the expected size of the greenhouse gas - driven signal) and data quality issues.»

@James Schrumpf 4:00 am I don't see how the natural variability of the temperature data can be called «noise.»

I think referring to the natural variability of data that has already been strenuously massaged to get to that one temperature point for the entire Earth as «noise» is a false concept.

The space - time structure of natural climate variability needed to determine the optimal fingerprint pattern and the resultant signal - to - noise ratio of the detection variable is estimated from several multi-century control simulations with different CGCMs and from instrumental data over the last 136 y. Applying the combined greenhouse gas - plus - aerosol fingerprint in the same way as the greenhouse gas only fingerprint in a previous work, the recent 30 - y trends (1966 — 1995) of annual mean near surface temperature are again found to represent a significant climate change at the 97.5 % confidence level.