Sentences with phrase «most by natural variability»
For decades to come, we're locked into generally rising temperatures, with shorter - term temperature shifts * — up or down — shaped most by natural variability in the system (as with the recent plateau in temperatures).
https://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/ Not exact matches
While observational data from satellites show less warming than predicted by most models, Santer and his co-authors demonstrate that the observed warming is consistent with models including both human and natural forcings, but inconsistent with models using only natural forcings and variability.
As indicated, we made a decision fairly early on that we stood to learn the most from this initiative by examining the natural variability within our sample.
Most experts deeply probing the Arctic ice, ocean and atmosphere say that the particularly striking ice changes of late probably can be traced to a significant dose of natural variability as well as a contribution from heat trapped by the atmosphere's building greenhouse - gas blanket.
That's one of the most stupid (and persistent) straw man arguments repeated by some skeptics giving no notice to the fact that all «warmists» agree that natural variability is true and has a significant strength.
However there is considerable uncertainty and disagreement about the most consequential issues: whether the warming has been dominated by human causes versus natural variability, how much the planet will warm in the 21st century, and whether warming is «dangerous».
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.
«The evidence presented here suggests that most of that warming might well have been caused by cloud changes associated with a natural mode of climate variability: the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.»
... [M] ost of the trends observed since satellite climate monitoring began in 1979 CE can not yet be distinguished from natural (unforced) climate variability, and are of the opposite sign [cooling] to those produced by most forced climate model simulations over the same post-1979 CE interval.»
Most projections suggest that that point will be reached sometime in the middle of the century, and, as another recent paper found, scientists» ability to pin down that date is limited by the natural variability of the sea ice system to within a couple of decades.
Our results suggest that the decadal AO and multidecadal LFO drive large amplitude natural variability in the Arctic making detection of possible long - term trends induced by greenhouse gas warming most difficult.
The most prominent feature is the extremely low ice extent observed since the mid-1990s (T1 in Fig. 3), which is well below the range of natural variability inferred by the reconstruction.
We're being hit by more and more multi-billion dollar climate & weather disasters like hurricane Sandy, the recent Great Plains heat waves and (most likely) ongoing «unprecedented» flooding in Colorado — disasters pushed beyond their natural variability by the changing conditions of our new climate.
When you look more closely at the annual temperature record, you can see how the long - term warming trend — for the most part caused by human activities — is manifesting itself along with shorter - term natural variability in the climate system.
If you want to incorporate any of this in your revision, the two points I would most recommend are (1) to acknowledge that the AR4 conclusions are not exclusively model - based, and (2) to identify to the extent feasible major fluctuations that might compete with GHGs rather than refer to them abstractly as climate variability, so that readers can assess for themselves how important they believe these sources of variation might have been during the particular interval cited by AR4, and whether it is necessary to invoke unidentified variables to make natural variation a potent competitor to anthropogenic forcings.
The bicentennial trend lines clearly diverge from the past 30 or 50 or hundred years, and the most closely fitting explanation for this behavior is anthropogenic causes shifting the trends leaving only a shadow of natural variability superimposed on the sharp centennial scale rise, at about an order of magnitude smaller amplitude than the changes associated with GHGs and dampened by man - made aerosols.
The most obvious reading of the IPCC's new version is that natural variability and climate change might reduce average annual yields by up to 50 %, but changes induced by two effects on yields from bad years are not the same as changes induced by one effect on yields averaged for both good and bad years.