Sentences with phrase «explain warming period»

What we are interested in is the longer term less easy to explain warming period from 1920 to about 1950.

Not exact matches

New research could explain why the Arctic was much warmer during a period millions of years ago that scientists say most closely resembles Earth's climate today

«Using a numerical climate model we found that sulfate reductions over Europe between 1980 and 2005 could explain a significant fraction of the amplified warming in the Arctic region during that period due to changes in long - range transport, atmospheric winds and ocean currents.

«In winters when it's quite cold but there are warm periods, the plants lose the blanket of snow that covers them,» Doak explains.

Assistant professor Kathrin Rousk, Department of Biology, explains, «to aid in predicting the role of moss - associated N2 fixation in a warmer, future climate, we quantified N2 fixation throughout the snow - free period in subarctic tundra.

«There seems to be a limit on how strong these ancient storms might be, but the number getting close to the limit appears to be larger during warmer periods,» Korty explains.

Geologists studying a region in the Mexican state of Veracruz have discovered evidence to explain the origin of the Wilcox Formation, one of Mexico's most productive oil plays, as well as support for the theory that water levels in the Gulf of Mexico dropped dramatically as it was separated from the rest of the world's oceans and Earth entered a period of extreme warming.

In a recent article in Climatic Change, D.G. Martinson and W.C. Pitman III discuss a new hypothesis explaining how the climate could change abruptly between ice ages and inter-glacial (warm) periods.

The study noted that the same climate models the UN IPCC uses can only «explain only about half of the heating that occurred during a well - documented period of rapid global warming in Earth's ancient past.»

«The study found that climate models explain only about half of the heating that occurred during a well - documented period of rapid global warming in Earth's ancient past.

Assuming you believe that the Arctic's temperature rise since the mid-1990s has been caused by CO2, how do you explain the ~ 40 years of cooling that preceded the warming — since CO2 was rapidly rising during both the cooling and warming periods?

This could easily explain the warming, and overwhelm any effect of coal burning during the same period.

Higher levels of CO2 prior to 1940 had some role in warming at that period, because of the greenhouse effect, but are insufficient when calculated to explain all the warming.

But the shortness of the warming period did not stop Hansen explaining to Congress the statistical significance of the rising trend that had occured during the 12 years before 1988.

The flat period of temperatures after WW2 has been sufficiently explained by an extended period of industrial aerosols, and is before the modern global warming period anyway.

I particularly enjoyed the slides that, when combined (1) provided an overview of hotter and cooler CO2 molecules as it relates to how they are seen from outer space and from profile — because this will make it easier for me to explain this process to others; (2) walked through the volcanic and solar activity vs assigning importance to CO2 changes — because this another way to help make it clearer, too, but in another way; (3) discussed CO2 induced warming and ocean rise vs different choices we might make — because this helps point out why every day's delay matters; and (4) showed Figure 1 from William Nordhaus» «Strategies for Control of Carbon Dioxide» and then super-imposed upon that the global mean temperature in colors showing pre-paper and post-paper periods — because this helps to show just how far back it was possible to make reasoned projections without the aid of a more nuanced and modern understanding.

However, as I understand it what is currently the mainstream view is that what explains the transition from early 20th century warming to the flat period between is the resumption of industrial production and thus of reflective aerosols (predominantly sulfates), and that likewise, it was the passage in the early seventies of laws requiring cleaner emissions that reduced reflective aerosols.

The study, which appears in Nature Geoscience, found that climate models explain only about half of the heating that occurred during a well - documented period of rapid global warming in Earth's ancient past.

You just can not use the simplistic argument that warmer air means more precipiation because of more water vapor to explain a very cold, very wet period.

Actually, there is some interesting work being done by Matt Huber of Purdue, following up on some earlier ideas of Emanuel's, suggesting that the role of TCs in transporting heat from equator towards the poles may be more significant than previously thought — it also allows for some interesting, though admittedly somewhat exotic, mechanisms for explaining the «cool tropics paradox» and «equable climate problem» of the early Paleogene and Cretaceous periods, i.e. the problem of how to make the higher latitudes warm without warming the tropics much, something that appears to have happened during some past warm epochs in Earth's history.

This anyway may explain most of the warming in the 1900 - 1940 period.

And explains why Earth because it past much warmer periods hasn't already had a runaway effect.

a) Our models can not explain the early 20th century warming period b) We know that the (statistically indistinguishable) late 20th century warming was caused principally by human - caused forcing.

Based on the GISP2 ice core proxy record from Greenland it has previously been pointed out that the present period of warming since 1850 to a high degree may be explained by a natural c. 1100 yr periodic temperature variation (Humlum et al., 2011).

Indeed they tend to regard the introduction of the aerosols as a «hack» to explain away the lack of warming in the 1945 - 75 period.

An AGW believer like Steven Mosher will tell you that AGW theory doesn't claim that AGW explains all the warming for a given period, but that AGW makes it That Much Warmer Than It Would Have Been.

What's especially silly about the «we can't think of anything else» argument is that the warmists can't explain what (if anything) caused the Little Ice Age or the Medieval Warm Period.

Jim D You still have not explained why you are working so hard to avoid warming and thus to encourage a return from the current warm interglacial period back down to the full glaciation temperatures.

That doesn't explain anything and in turn leaves the Sun as the only possible causative agent for the Modern Warm Period.»

NO climate «scientist» can explain these earlier massive changes, nor can they explain today's modern warming period.

The reason given is that Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) varied so little over that period that it can not explain the warming that was observed.

«As a Lukewarmer I cheerfully accept the science explaining how our high emissions of CO2 have contributed to the current warming period.»

In terms of explaining this period of warming, the stadium wave argues: 1910 - 1940 (warming), 1940 - 1975 (cooling), 1975 - 2001 (warming), 2002 - present (cooling)-- against a background secular warming trend.

'' As a Lukewarmer I (TF) cheerfully accept the science explaining how our high emissions of CO2 have contributed to the current warming period.»

Much of the warming, he says, stems from fluctuations in temperature that have occurred for millions of years — explained by complicated natural changes in equilibrium between the oceans and the atmosphere — and the latest period of warming will not result in catastrophe.

He says: «As a Lukewarmer I cheerfully accept the science explaining how our high emissions of CO2 have contributed to the current warming period» What warming period?

I have been arguing that the IPCC's attribution arguments are unconvincing unless they can also explain the early 20th century warming, and the longer period of overall warming prior to the 20th century.

The priests will explain that the Hockey Stick graph is really not faked [there was no Medieval Warming Period, ity was made up by the oil / gas / coal industry], the dangerous warming they predicted 25 years ago really, really happened (it just got buried in the deep oceans — at a time when the pacific is unnaturally cold) and Warming Period, ity was made up by the oil / gas / coal industry], the dangerous warming they predicted 25 years ago really, really happened (it just got buried in the deep oceans — at a time when the pacific is unnaturally cold) and warming they predicted 25 years ago really, really happened (it just got buried in the deep oceans — at a time when the pacific is unnaturally cold) and so on..

He evidently is not too literate in global warming theory either because he tries to explain the current non-warming period by saying that the ``... current stand - still of the 5 - year running mean global temperature may be largely a consequence of the fact that the first half of the past 10 years had predominantly El Nino conditions, and the second half had predominantly La Nina conditions.»

This does not invalidate the evidence as the overall warming happened to be strong enough to be difficult to explain without AGW, but equally well it might have happened that the natural variability and AGW would have largely canceled each other leading to total lack of evidence for AGW over that period.

And, finally, there is the problem logically of two statistically indistinguishable warming periods (roughly 1910 - 1940 and 1970 - 2000), where the latter period is attributed to a large extent to AGW (because the models can not «explain» it any other way) while the former can not be explained by the models.

Secondly, the Medieval Warm Period has known causes which explain both the scale of the warmth and the pattern.

Also can you show me the link that you say explains that sea levels were higher during medieval warm period?

There are also papers explaining the mechanisms by which specific solar cycle changes could reduce planetary cloud cover and there is observational evidence that shows sub cycles of warming and cooling with the sub cycles correlating to the specific solar mechanisms during the 20 year period at which time there was satellite measurement of planetary cloud cover.

What Doctor Muscheler's first phrasing and his followup phrasing means in cold hard facts is that he doesn't know and therefore can not explain the periods of cooling / warming.

We have a solid 10,000 years of recent climate change to consider, and it shows several periods of greater warming than present, none explained by increased atmospheric CO2, or more obviously, by human activity.

Over a period of 97 Hours Of Consensus, his website will be showing cartoon caricatures of climate scientists from around the world, each with little speech bubbles coming out of their cartoon mouths explaining exactly why global warming is more real and dangerous than ever before.

-- How do you explain that warming rate along [1910 — 1840] period is exactly the same (+0,45 °C over 30 years) as the one observed over [1970 — 2000] period, whereas [CO2] was about 30 % lower and human emissions 5 time lower?

How come no - one explained that we should not be surprised at a thirteen - year «no warming» period when the temperatures were going up?

They suggest that during previous warm periods — one about 120,000 years ago and another about 10,000 years ago — the Middle East saw severe drought, with rainfall decreasing to at least half of what it typically is today, and at its worst drying up by 80 percent, Columbia University explained in a statement.