Sentences with phrase «meaningful time scales»

On meaningful time scales (i.e. 15 years and above) the bulk properties of climate average out, which means that any internally driven variation of bulk properties is pretty small scale and transient.

The core panel conclusion, of course, is that rich and developing nations are way behind on what would need to be done to avoid substantial and largely irreversible (on meaningful time scales) warming of the climate.

In the meantime, I'll conclude by stressing the importance of considering such fights over climate details in the broader context of what's known, unknown, learnable and essentially unknowable on meaningful time scales — and what society might do with the resulting mix of knowledge.

Going down this path, you'll quickly find yourself in a debate on discounting and the time value of action / resources, which will take you deep into discussions of subjects such as environmental ethics, future / present generations, the foundational assumtions of the discipline of economics, etc. — all very important and interesting subjects, but ones on which there is unlikely to be forged a new consensus on meaningful time scales related to climate change.

Can it be argued given the paleoclimate evidence for abrupt climate changes that there is likely no strong negative feedback over any meaningful time scale?

Couple that with the limited growth potential of CO2 concentrations and growing biological response (which likely lags concentration growth), and it doesn't even seem plausible that warming will be a net cost on a meaningful time scale (hey anything is possible — maybe there are temporary climate regimes where even mild ghe produces worse weather which we just haven't experienced yet — eg a portion of the - PDO phase).

Now convinced the system is chaotic on every meaningful time scale.

Not exact matches

Not to mention a vastly greater set of energy sources — indeed, a limitless set of energy sources on any time scale that's meaningful to human civilization.

Given humanity's focus on the near and now, the greatest challenge posed by global warming is figuring out how to spur meaningful changes in energy norms based on a risk with this time scale.

How are such small time scales even meaningful with MWP considered and a recent hockey stick paper retracted?

Owing to the decreased number of spatial degrees of freedom in the earliest reconstructions (associated with significantly decreased calibrated variance before e.g. 1730 for annual - mean and cold - season, and about 1750 for warm - season pattern reconstructions) regional inferences are most meaningful in the mid 18th century and later, while the largest - scale averages are useful further back in time.

Another issue is the use of an «equilibration time» even though the analysis shown in some papers indicates that it may not be meaningful, in that perturbation response time is not constant but scales with time.

To get good data in time scales meaningful to us (weeks to months to years) you need thousands of identical earths to beat back the noise.