Sentences with phrase «explained by natural variability»

And since you like «eye balling graphs» have a look at the latest hadcrut or nasa global temperature graph, and it should be obvious to even you the «pause» is a blip of about 6 years duration of flat temperatures, thus easily explained by natural variability.

Then you need to formulate the counter argument, which would be that 20th century warming can be explained by natural variability.

Although the recent drought may have significant contributions from natural variability, it is notable that hydrological changes in the region over the last 50 years can not be fully explained by natural variability, and instead show the signature of anthropogenic climate change.

This is in stark contrast with the Arctic where there are strong decreasing trends that can not be explained by natural variability.

From the Original Post: «But [there are] people who think that climate change is mostly explained by natural variability, again this is not an irrational position that deserves the label of denier.

About half of the summer ice loss between 1979 and 2005 can be explained by natural variability, the researchers found, while the other half is due to human greenhouse emissions.

Research suggests that long - term drying trends over southern Australia can not be explained by natural variability alone.

This pattern can not be explained by natural variability alone, and is consistent with model simulations of a warming climate.2

We have loosely grouped the global warming views of several prominent climate researchers along a scale ranging from those who are convinced global warming is a man - made crisis («1») to those who believe that global warming can be entirely explained by natural variability («5»).

«The burning of fossil fuels such as oil, gas and coal releases greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide into the Earth's atmosphere, which has warmed to levels that can not be explained by natural variability, scientists say,» USA Today reports.

Long term trends can not be explained by natural variability because it does not create energy it simply moves it around the climate system.

Cycles of natural variability such as the Arctic Oscillation are known to play a role in Arctic sea ice extent, but the sharp decline seen in this decade can not be explained by natural variability alone.

The authors find that observed widening can not be explained by natural variability.

The warming could all be explained by natural variability.

The early 18th century warming correlation to the most recent decades http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET1690-1960.htm which could be only explained by the natural variability: Some of the more prominent AGW propagandists from Grant Foster (Tamino) and Daniel Bailey (Skeptical Science) to the NASA's expert Jan Perlwitz have fallen flat on their faces trying to deal with the above.

«Even accounting for all uncertainties and limitations, the temperature change could not be realistically explained by natural variability alone, implying a long - term human signal,» Will told me.

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 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.

So three out of four are rising and one is falling (quite well explained by natural variability and ENSO).

The skeptics» point is simple: The alarmists» admit that the first half of the 20th century can be largely explained by natural variability — solar, etc..

Not exact matches

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).

[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.

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 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.

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.»

Lead author Dr Debbie Polson, of the University of Edinburgh's School of GeoSciences, said: «This study shows for the first time that the drying of the monsoon over the past 50 years can not be explained by natural climate variability and that human activity has played a significant role in altering the seasonal monsoon rainfall on which billions of people depend.»

This finding can not be explained by natural climate variability alone, the study found, and is instead consistent with global warming

Modes of natural climate variability are those forces of nature by which people who know nothing about modes of natural climate variability can explain everything.

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.

In 1990, two years after NASA scientist James E. Hansen issued his now famous warning about climate change during a congressional hearing, Lindzen started taking a publicly contrarian stance when he challenged then - senator Gore by suggesting in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society that the case for human - induced global warming was overstated and that natural climate variability could explain things just as easily.

So, the scientists are saying the pause can be explained by small natural variability, and the skeptics are having none of it, but on the other hand everything is large natural variability.

The rest is well explained by natural unforced variability.

The fact that CO2 has been almost twenty times higher in the past, for millions of years at a time without triggering a catastrophe is completely ignored due to the cognitive dissonance of the true believers in Al Gore's movie fantasies — as is everything else that can be explained by natural climate variability.

Some might believe that this all suggests that CO2 appears to be a somewhat weak climate driver that is overwhelmed by natural variability, and that our international institutions appear to have inexplicably forgotten their climate history and not be aware that, far from being «unprecedented,» the apparent cyclical nature of our climate explains the current temperature trends very nicely.

They explain the pause as warming due to CO2, counteracted by cooling due to aerosols (see e.g. Table, p. 54 of the Technical Summary to AR5) and mysterious unknown forces («natural variability»).

The new study confirmed that the losses of Arctic ice in the late 20th century can't be explained by natural climate variability alone, the researchers write Thursday (Aug. 11) in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

Climate changes since 1950 can not be explained by natural factors or variability, and can only be explained by human factors.

Now forced to explain the warming hiatus, Trenberth has flipped flopped about the PDO's importance writing «One of the things emerging from several lines is that the IPCC has not paid enough attention to natural variability, on several time scales,» «especially El Niños and La Niñas, the Pacific Ocean phenomena that are not yet captured by climate models, and the longer term Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) which have cycle lengths of about 60 years.»

Tett SFB et al., JGR 2002 (Estimation of natural and anthropogenic contributions to twentieth century temperature change,) says «Our analysis suggests that the early twentieth century warming can best be explained by a combination of warming due to increases in greenhouse gases and natural forcing, some cooling due to other anthropogenic forcings, and a substantial, but not implausible, contribution from internal variability.

It is very unlikely that Northern Hemisphere temperature variations from 1400 to 1850 can be explained by natural internal variability alone; — something, such as changes in solar and / or volcanic activity, must have driven the changes.

Of course, it could be argued that natural variability since 1951 has been appreciably greater than that which is estimated by the IPCC, and that this may explain part or all of the observed reluctance of temperatures to rise as quickly as they have been predicted to rise using AGW forced models.

They then looked at whether these changes could be explained as natural or as a consequence of human influence, and pinned a proportion of the blame on natural variability − some of it driven by long - term changes in the tropics.

Regional circulation patterns have significantly changed in recent years.2 For example, changes in the Arctic Oscillation can not be explained by natural variation and it has been suggested that they are broadly consistent with the expected influence of human - induced climate change.3 The signature of global warming has also been identified in recent changes in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, a pattern of variability in sea surface temperatures in the northern Pacific Ocean.4

«We show that anthropogenic forcing has had a detectable influence on observed changes in average precipitation within latitudinal bands, and that these changes can not be explained by internal climate variability or natural forcing.

And «That natural climate variability can explain everything we see in the climate system» is a crock of you - know - what (Spencer isn't Japanese, by the way).

Climate change in the latter half of the 20th century is detected based upon an increase in global surface temperature anomalies that is much larger than can be explained by natural internal variability.

Confidence in the climate models elevated by inverse calculations and bootstrapped plausibility is used as a central premise in the argument that climate change in the latter half of the 20th century is much larger than can be explained by natural internal variability (premise # 1).