Sentences with phrase «does over timescales»

But such precision could be a hindrance when the magnetic field varies, as it does over timescales of a year or more.

Not exact matches

Bonds and cash were always a lousy long - term investment versus equities over many decades, but over shorter timescales the apparent return differences didn't seem so vast as they do today.

«Variations over weeks or months don't really tell you anything about the 1,000 - year timescale that governs hydrogen,» notes Kevin Zahnle, an astronomer at NASA's Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, Calif., who was not involved in the study.

«Usually distant galaxies do not change significantly over an astronomer's lifetime, i.e. on a timescale of years or decades,» explains Andrea Merloni, «but this one showed a dramatic variation of its spectrum, as if the central black hole had switched on and off.»

«We found that periodically wet soils don't necessarily protect organic matter from decomposition and may lead to losses, at least over a timescale of weeks to months,» he said.

I know that Mike Schlesinger is going to be working on further studies to see what extra data, and over what timescales, might help us constrain the upper tail, but the possibility arises that no amount of data will do this, or at least, not in time for us to act on it with enough warning to prevent serious problems.

For the most part, I've not seen much evidence to suggest that internal variations alone can bring the climate to a new state on decadal timescales, even if the internal fluctuations do not completely average out over decades (e.g.,, the PDO being in a positive phase more than a negative phase during the timescale of consideration).

But I think the response does clarify one thing for me: the «The warming has to be due to CO2, as evidenced by its duration,» refers primarily not to the duration of the onset itself (which is what I was naively focussing on), but rather the fact that the warming lasted over millennial timescales.

I agree the OHC data are incompatible with a predominately internal contribution (although I'm sure Judith would argue those data are too uncertain, though I don't think anyone has argued OHC decreasing over the last half - century, at least not at the ocean basins / depths that communicate with the atmosphere on the relevant timescales).

It appears that Ghil, and others specifically warn against the use of MEM and temperature data: «Instrumental temperature data over the last few centuries do not seem, for instance, to determine sufficiently well the behavior of global or local temperatures to permit a reliable climate forecast on the decadal timescale by this SSA - MEM method.»

It seems that those who fear AGW (or at least some of them) do admit that it is not realistic to expect a planetary atmosphere such as ours to warm up oceans of water over the timescale required by AGW theory because of the huge volume and density of that water and thus the heat storage differentials.

Don't forget that there is natural variability in the climate, and the GW signal won't be differentiated from the noise over short timescales.

But, they do suggest that there is a lot of natural temperature variability over timescales of centuries.

However, there do also seem to be lunar and solar cycles which take place over longer timescales, e.g., the 18.6 year lunar cycle.

Some of these episodes are based on climatology (i.e., averages over decadal timescales) as previously mentioned, so they don't allow the study of interannual variability but do give strong evidence of prevailing conditions in the longer term; this is especially true of the southern hemisphere.

Global Temperature is an example of a bulk property, and it does indeed average out over sufficient time scales; hence showing that whatever chaos, spatio - temporal or otherwise, is present in the system on short timescales it does not affect our longer term predictions.

This does not support a prominent role for chaos over the assessed timescales.

All the data that I'm aware clearly shows that models predicting or hindcasting global temperature trends do far better at 30 year timescales than annually or over only a few years.

For the problem where there is strong integral forcing over the period of say a half century (such as greenhouse gas forcing), this is more predictable, but trying to tie down a prediction on the timescale of a decade just doesn't work owing to the temporal - spatio chaos that is present.

It has much potential future utility in narrowing down our understanding of TOA flux imbalances, and perhaps in helping us estimate climate sensitivity, but current and historical measurements limit our current ability to do this — particularly over short timescales.

I would have though that absent any such additional forcing the El Nino and La Nina would indeed cancel out over enough time but as you point out they clearly do not cancel out on multidecadal timescales.

If your predictions do not seem to come to pass, merely claim that simulations show that your predictions will prove to be true over timescales of many decades and that potential disasters will occur if your suggestions are not followed.

You might notice I asked for a 50 year forecast and I did so intentionally because over that timescale infrastructure can be build and it is easier to measure whether or not anything is actually happening.

I won't claim to know what specifics should go into programming these models, but I do know it will be critical for model developers to publish the characteristics their models are expected to predict, within what margin of error, over what timescales, before the outputs of the models will be widely accepted.

We do not understand the interactions of a complex system sufficiently and the timescales over which ECS may be reached may well be longer than humans care about.

Weather balloons and satellites do a good job of measuring short - term changes and indeed find a hot spot over monthly timescales.

To do so it would have to be argued both that it matches not merely the areas it was tweaked to match (i.e. it matches regionally and over different timescales) and that the underlying physics matches reality..

Only over climate timescales (typically, 30 years or more), do the long - term trends emerge that reflect the influence of changes in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide.»

What they can not easily do, however, is perpetuate a trend in those concentrations, because they themselves go up and down over much shorter timescales than the long term trajectory from preindustial days to today.

Wiki says that here, but doesn't cite: «Over the 50 — 100 year timescale, the climate response to forcing is likely to follow the TCR; for considerations of climate stabilization on the millennial time scale, the ECS is more pertinent.»

I think Leif looks more favourably on solely oceanic influences on climate over human timescales but I don't feel able to go with that as yet because of the size of changes between ice ages and interglacials.

Second, when dealing with a discipline that is inherently concerned with trends, that is the criterion you must apply to the models — do they reproduce the trends more or less properly over the relevant timescales.

Or you could possibly try to think a little bit and then try to explain why the * average * of weather somehow does not vary over time or on different timescales.

But the long term trend is up, and in the physical world, such trends towards increasing (or decreasing) temperatures over climatologically relevant timescales do not happen without a reason.