Sentences with phrase «larger than natural variability»

Not exact matches

The researchers, from the University of Reading and University of Iowa, found that large parts of the projected changes in AR frequency and intensity would be down to thermodynamic changes in the atmosphere, rather than the natural variability of the climate, suggesting that it is a response to anthropogenic climate change.

But from an email conversation with Francis, Vavrus, and several other atmospheric scientists this week, it became clear that there may be more questions than answers at this point, given the large amount of natural variability that affects winter weather patterns, and the very short observational record of how the atmosphere responded to extreme losses of sea ice (only five winters of records since 2007).

Prof Curry said: «I suspect that the portion of the decline in the sea ice attributable to natural variability could be even larger than half.

The reason why CO2 trumps natural variability IN THE LONG RUN is not becuase it is, at present, much larger than energy fluctuations due to natural variability, but because it's sign is consistent.

In 50 years, human impacts on ocean acidification will be twice as large — still smaller than natural variability, but more significant.

It is quite clear that the perturbation that we are currently imposing is already large, and will be substantially larger, by up to an order of magnitude, than any plausible natural variability over this time scale.

The forecast for the first decade has almost no chance of being correct, and the one for the second decade implies a degree of natural variability that is significantly larger than their model generates on their own or is seen in the obs.

Under the assumption that the control runs have reasonable natural variability, the influence of natural variability has been addressed, since the probability that a 150 yr trend this large would appear by chance in the control run is less than 1 %.

The precision of a measurement can be misleading especially when the range of natural variability is as large or larger than the «forcing».

Large and Yeager (2012) examined global ocean average net heat flux variability using the CORE data set over 1984 — 2006 and concluded that natural variability, rather than long - term climate change, dominates heat flux changes over this relatively short, recent period.

Published long enough ago to have a predicted trend that is larger than the noise and expected natural variability.

It's true that some climate models predict that Antarctic sea ice should be decreasing, but as Polvani and Smith (2013) shows, the natural variability in Antarctic sea ice extent is probably larger than any trend from the forced response in models anyway.

Natural variability of C12 and C13 sources seem to be an order of magnitude larger than that inferred from the limited data produced from human emissions.

You realize of course that if the secular trend from AGW is lower than the IPCC thinks and natural variability is larger than they think, then you will of course find short periods where warming apparently stalls.

Curry not only takes the extreme range of this — which is illogical since, contorted arguments to argue otherwise aside, she even goes beyond it: to, as quoted above, ludicrously conclude from all this that not only is it not just «reasonably possible» that half could be due to natural variation that just happens to coincide with what we would expect to see from the atmospheric alteration inadvertently undertaken, but that rather than it being somewhere in the middle of up to half being due to variability, or a similarly large portion in fact being veiled, but all of what «could» on the one end of the range be, in fact, IS, but then goes beyond that.

The ISPM overview states: «Natural climatic variability is now believed to be substantially larger than previously estimated, as is the uncertainty associated with historical temperature reconstructions.»

However, changes in climate at the global scale observed over the past 50 years are far larger than can be accounted for by natural variability.

Larger interannual variations are seen in the observations than in the ensemble mean model simulation of the 20th century because the ensemble averaging process filters out much of the natural internal interannual variability that is simulated by the models.

A physicist is no more likely than a sociologist to know what human emissions will be 50 years from now — if a slight warming would be beneficial or harmful to humans or the natural world; if forcings and feedbacks will partly or completely offset the theoretical warming; if natural variability will exceed any discernible human effect; if secondary effects on weather will lead to more extreme or more mild weather events; if efforts to reduce emissions will be successful; who should reduce emissions, by what amounts, or when; and whether the costs of attempting to reduce emissions will exceed the benefits by an amount so large as to render the effort counterproductive.

Relative to natural internal variability, near - term increases in seasonal mean and annual mean temperatures are expected to be larger in the tropics and subtropics than in mid-latitudes (high confidence).

Or the millions of acres of farmland and fruit trees or any number of ways that monetary damages today are exponentially larger than in the 19th century from exactly the same natural variability weather events that have been going on for thousands of years.

But from an email conversation with Francis, Vavrus, and several other atmospheric scientists this week, it became clear that there may be more questions than answers at this point, given the large amount of natural variability that affects winter weather patterns, and the very short observational record of how the atmosphere responded to extreme losses of sea ice (only five winters of records since 2007).

The possibility that natural variability explains the century - scale observed rise in atmospheric CO2 can easily be dismissed based on simple accounting (anthropogenic emissions are larger than the rise itself, and thus account for over 100 % of the observed rise).

-------- I agree that is is too bad that some are so transfixed on the rather limited and rather small energy content and low thermal inertia of the troposphere as displayed in surface temperatures, but it certainly provides some fuel for the endless chatter and yipping of denialists as the surface temperatures exhibit far more natural variability than the larger metric of ocean heat content.

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).