Sentences with phrase «known climate cycles»

The Science paper further suggested the distribution of hills at one mid-ocean ridge could be matched with three well - known climate cycles — the Milankovitch cycles — that take place every 23,000, 41,000, and 100,000 years.

A number of well - known climate cycles can affect rainfall in the Sahara and the Sahel.

Not exact matches

I can explain climate change as a result of a natural cycle caused by the masses and orbits of the planets, but I don't go around calling believers in humans causing climate change idiots simply because I know what actually causes it.

«The complex water cycle has to be known better to understand our climate and to reliably estimate its development.»

(McNutt's response was «no» because drawbacks to the hydrological cycle would likely exceed the benefits in terms of global climate.)

Why this is isn't known, but Hayden and her colleagues suspect it is because the harsh desert climate doesn't allow the mosquitoes to live long enough for dengue to undergo its full development cycle.

«We started from scratch and she wanted to know glacial cycles, rate of deforesting, solar variability — all of the issues that could impact climate and why I think that humans are the main driver of climate change,» he explained afterward at a debriefing with colleagues at a pub on Capitol Hill.

If we do not know the thermal response of the earth well enough to know the size of the solar cycle response how close are we to knowing the relationship between observable (short term) climate sensitivity and the long run sensitivity.

This impact of the solar cycle on climate has been known for years.

The IPCC's first «Special Report on Cities and Climate Change» won't be ready until some time in the 2023 - 2028 window, the five - year period known as the seventh assessment report cycle in IPCC parlance.

So we have the national «liberal» media, like the NYT and NBC, blowing this story, while the local, conservative media get it right, see «conservative San Diego Union knows climate change is killing Western forests» and «Oldest Utah newspaper: Bark - beetle driven wildfires are a vicious climate cycle.»

They need to know: what a GHG is and how the GHE works; the carbon cycle; how climate has changed over the entire geologic history of the planet; how the climate has changed recently (relatively speaking); the main variables of climate like temperature, rainfall, etc.; the role of the sun, atmosphere and oceans on climate.

Well my point is that a model that is tuned to match a climate signal only, should not track, accurately, a record that is both a climate and weather signal especially when we know that these medium term effects can be quite strong, even if they cycle out in the longer term.

Walt, if you've ever studied Pleistocene geology and the million year history of glacial advances and interglacial warming cycles you would know human - induced global warming and climate changes are the dominant cause of current and future catastrophic consequences.

I think it is fair to say that the cycle of media interest in climate change has run its course, and this story is no longer considered newsworthy.

We know that the solar cycle (main tide) does not have a profound effect on the climate, although it does have some.

How come when it comes to «feedback in climate» no bugger knows what it means, but when it comes to «feedback in the rabits / foxes cycle» or «feedback as in my mic is next to the loudspeaker for the mic», everyone knows it?

I know in general terms that the hydrological cycle should intensify with warming and that one event is hard to pin on climate change, but it would be good to do a catch up on how the broad trend of extreme weather fits the models.

Second, the relationship we are seeing in the ice cores is made up of two independent factors: the sensitivity of the CO2 to temperature over the ice age cycle — roughly ~ 100 ppmv / 4ºC or ~ 25 ppmv / ºC — and the sensitivity of the climate to CO2, which we'd like to know.

However, there are no well defined climate cycles at exactly 20 (or even approximately) or exactly 60 (or even approximately) years, meaning having a physical (or physics) basis in reality.

This leaves the solar cycle the only known cause of climate change on large scale, up to modern times where there is a documented antropogenic contribution.

I have not made up my mind yet: We know so little about a climate that over a billion years has at times been hot enough to boil water or create and destroy life in uncountable cycles, that has sent glaciers down to cover temperate lands and then has melted the glaciers so that life could return.

Researchers are confident that they understand the cycle of Ice Ages, and they also have a clear idea that the biosphere plays a hand in keeping the planet at liveable temperatures, but they also know that the high altitudes are more than usually affected by climate change driven by ever - higher ratios of greenhouse gases released by the combustion of fossil fuels by seven billion humans.

This climate cycle that Dr Curry's team has found will cool the earth, no matter what you do with CO2.

And weather scientists do see a possible relationship between the weather phenomenon known as La Nina and the tornado outbreak, and some in the weather world are exploring whether climate change is causing a disruption in the El Nino / La Nina cycle.

When we do, no matter how good the climate model is it will not be able to overcome deficiencies in our ability to predict the things that affect climate — solar activity, ocean cycles, etc — and it will not be able to overcome deficiencies in our understanding of how things that affect climate actually work — solar activity, Earth orbital changes, etc..

la Nina cycles are part of natural variability, and as far as I know, predicting those events well enough to include in climate models are outside our capabilities right now.

In one study, Dennis Hartmann, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Washington, pinpointed a climate cycle that seems to be linked to the most well - known of such phenomena, El Niño.

Here we show that in addition to other well - known climate indices, solar forcing largely drives decadal, interdecadal, and centennial cycles within the tropical cyclone record.»

This theory stipulates that changes in Earth's elliptical orbit around the sun (eccentricity), changes in the direction in which our axis points (precession) and changes in the tilt of the earth itself (obliquity)-- known as Milankovitch Cycles — should contribute to changes in climate because of the different amounts of solar insolation received during these changes.

It's also interesting to note that climate scientists have known for at least three decades that short - term fluctuations in temperature (e.g., those associated with the ENSO cycle) are correlated with short - term fluctuations in the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 (Bacastow and Keeling 1981).

While the local nature of ABCs around polluted cities has been known since the early 1900s, the widespread transoceanic and transcontinental nature of ABCs as well as their large - scale effects on climate, hydrological cycle, and agriculture were discovered inadvertently by The Indian Ocean Experiment (INDOEX), an international experiment conducted in the 1990s over the Indian Ocean.

«Predictions» are future conditions based on past conditions coupled with known periodic climate cycle conditions.

The scientists explain that the known natural cycles and processes are accounted for in climate models.

And don't forget that the best evidence seems to be that in climate there are cycles within cycles, not all by any means of known regularity, and those can't be easily replicated by modellers who like linear projections.

Do scientists know enough to separate human factors from the numerous, powerful, interrelated solar, cosmic, oceanic, terrestrial and other forces that have repeatedly caused minor to major climate changes, climate cycles and weather events throughout human and geologic history?

We now know that climate cycles and the global warming of the last 300 years are consistent with recovery from the LIA with periods of no - warming and cooling provided by shorter cycles.

So no matter how many record warming years you have according to the simple weather or yearly cycles estimations, or how many such record years you may «produce», it does not really mean anything in climate terms,............... that is why these crazy records make not even a dent to the plateau or the hiatus... or put another way....

On the historical scale — the paleoclimate scale — the sun is important, we know the sun is driving these long cycles, but if you look at the small variations in the solar radiation and the variations in the climate data they don't match up.

This is the dire forecast of Professor Valentina Zharkova, a solar physicist at Northumbria University, who has based her prediction on sun spot activity — known to be a significant driver of global climate — which is currently very low and likely to get even lower during the next three solar cycles.

Guideline 3 of the series Monitoring impacts of urban and peri-urban agriculture and forestry on climate change mitigation and adaptation.The methodology provided in this manual for calculating these indicators is an adaptation of the well - known Life Cycle Analysis (LCA).

Last summer, James Hansen — the pioneer of modern climate science — pieced together a research - based revelation: a little - known feedback cycle between the oceans and massive ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland might have already jump - started an exponential surge of sea levels.

We really do not know the full influence of the Sun's solar cycles on the Earth's climate.

The planetary motions that spur climate swings are known as Milankovitch cycles, named for the Serbian mathematician who worked them out in the 1920s.

The question seems to be whether there really is something new in this that is not already implicit in the known workings of the water cycle and adiabatic ascent and descent within the main high and low pressure cells that together form our permanent climate zones.

The orbital or Milankovitch cycles are the best studied, and between them and the Lunar nodal regression cycle of 18.6 years lies the orbital gap, where no astronomical cycle is known to affect climate.

He also points out that a weak cycle may not have an effect on our climate; we simply don't know for sure.

Maybe I just wasn't aware all this time, I've only known about geoengineering for under two years, but still I feel it's recently gotten worse with people (climate skeptics) in this cause ranting about the «carbon credits», «Co2 is not a threat», «there's less Co2 than they say», «it's not manmade», «it's a natural cycle» blah blah blah.

Given all the known cycles in the climate (PDO, AMO, ENSO, etc) forgive me if I think that a 1 - 2 % change in the global carbon cycle over a period of 50 - 100 years is probably more than likely.

It is intellectually dishonest to devote several pages to cherry - picking studies that disagree with the IPCC consensus on net health effects because you don't like its scientific conclusion, while then devoting several pages to hiding behind [a misstatement of] the U.N. consensus on sea level rise because you know a lot reasonable people think the U.N. wildly underestimated the upper end of the range and you want to attack Al Gore for worrying about 20 - foot sea level rise.On this blog, I have tried to be clear what I believe with my earlier three - part series: Since sea level, arctic ice, and most other climate change indicators have been changing faster than most IPCC models projected and since the IPCC neglects key amplifying carbon cycle feedbacks, the IPCC reports almost certainly underestimate future climate impacts.