Sentences with phrase «natural influences on climate»

Do you mean that we should only study natural influences on climate and ignore anything humans might be doing?

Which is why the IPCC (AR5) claims natural influences on climate (which they effectively list as TSI only) are next to zero.

His research focuses on how human and natural influences on climate contribute to observed climate change and risks of extreme weather and in quantifying their implications for long - range climate forecasts.

The better scientists can pin down natural influences on climate, he says, the better they can understand the impact of human activities.

Not exact matches

APF Canada is dedicated to strengthening ties between Canada and Asia with a focus on expanding economic relations through trade, investment and innovation; promoting Canada's expertise in offering solutions to Asia's climate change, energy, food security and natural resource management challenges; building Asia skills and competencies among Canadians, including young Canadians; and, improving Canadians» general understanding of Asia and its growing global influence.

While natural sources of climate variability are significant, multiple lines of evidence indicate that human influences have had an increasingly dominant effect on the climate warming observed since the mid-twentieth century.

In the GRL study, researchers used a statistical model based on historical climate data to separate how much of the extreme rainfall from Hurricane Harvey was due to natural influences and how much was due to human influences.

The model also accounted for natural drivers of change, including the direct influence of increased carbon dioxide on ocean - carbon uptake and the indirect effect that a changing climate has on the physical state of the ocean and its relationship to atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Tans initially expected February to be the first month of the year above 400 ppm, but predicting that threshold is tricky because CO2 concentrations depend both on emissions and natural ecosystem processes, which can be influenced by climate phenomena like the El Nino Southern Oscillation cycle, he said.

«This quantitative attribution of human and natural climate influences on the IPWP expansion increases our confidence in the understanding of the causes of past changes as well as for projections of future changes under further greenhouse warming,» commented Seung - Ki Min, a professor with POSTECH's School of Environmental Science and Engineering.

Long underappreciated, puny motes of natural dust turn out to have a tremendous influence on climate, cloud formation, and the fertilization of oceans and rain forests.

The researchers determined that natural influences on Earth's climate, such as those caused by variations in its orbit around the sun, could affect the strength of El Niño events.

The high temperatures and frequent heat waves were the combined result of natural variation and human influence on the climate.

«In order to quantify the anthropogenic influences on climate, we need accurate measurements of the natural climate - forcing agents, the most important of which is the sun,» associate professor Peter Pilewskie said.

Three Australasian researchers have shown that natural forces are the dominant influence on climate, in a study just published in the highly - regarded Journal of Geophysical Research.

The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), and El Niño - Southern Oscillation (ENSO) have all been found to significantly influence changes in surface air temperature and rainfall (climate) on decadal and multi-decadal scales, and these natural ocean oscillations have been robustly connected to changes in solar activity.

It's El Niño «Three Australasian researchers have shown that natural forces are the dominant influence on climate, in a study just published in the highly - regarded Journal of Geophysical Research.

The ecosystems chapter concludes that, «Human - induced climate change, in conjunction with other stresses, is exerting major influences on natural environments and biodiversity, and these influences are generally expected to grow with increased warming.»

Observed changes in ocean heat content have now been shown to be inconsistent with simulated natural climate variability, but consistent with a combination of natural and anthropogenic influences both on a global scale, and in individual ocean basins.

Sometime this century the day will arrive when the human influence on the climate will overwhelm all other natural factors.

It seems oddly tendentious to deny for instance the role of natural variability on the basis that some of the recent changes in these long standing climate patterns may be influenced by greenhouse gases.

Using this new information as well as other independent studies on methane emissions published since 2011, and the latest information on the climate influence of methane compared to carbon dioxide from the latest synthesis report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released in September of this year, it is clear that natural gas is no bridgclimate influence of methane compared to carbon dioxide from the latest synthesis report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released in September of this year, it is clear that natural gas is no bridgClimate Change released in September of this year, it is clear that natural gas is no bridge fuel.

While Pam and Haiyan, as well as other recent tropical cyclone disasters, can not be uniquely pinned on global warming, they have no doubt been influenced by natural and anthropogenic climate change and they do remind us of our continuing vulnerability to such storms.

THEN STEFAN SAYS EXACTLY WHAT THE PRESIDENT WAS INFERRING IN HIS PRESS CONFERENCE; and what has been repeatedly said already in the IPCC Reports: «While Pam and Haiyan, as well as other recent tropical cyclone disasters, can not be uniquely pinned on global warming, they have no doubt been influenced by natural and anthropogenic climate change and they do remind us of our continuing vulnerability to such storms.»

UV radiation levels in the stratosphere or cosmic ray influences on low level cloud formation) may be amplified by natural resonance matching to the overall climate system.

The EPA continues: «Nevertheless, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated there was a «discernible» human influence on climate; and that the observed warming trend is «unlikely to be entirely natural in origin.Climate Change (IPCC) stated there was a «discernible» human influence on climate; and that the observed warming trend is «unlikely to be entirely natural in origin.climate; and that the observed warming trend is «unlikely to be entirely natural in origin.»

The lines of evidence and analysis supporting the mainstream position on climate change are diverse and robust — embracing a huge body of direct measurements by a variety of methods in a wealth of locations on the Earth's surface and from space, solid understanding of the basic physics governing how energy flow in the atmosphere interacts with greenhouse gases, insights derived from the reconstruction of causes and consequences of millions of years of natural climatic variations, and the results of computer models that are increasingly capable of reproducing the main features of Earth's climate with and without human influences.

So: The study finds a fingerprint of anthropogenic influences on large scale increase in precipitation extremes, with remaining uncertainties — namely that there is still a possibility that the widespread increase in heavy precipitation could be due to an unusual event of natural variability.The intensification of extreme rainfall is expected with warming, and there is a clear physical mechanism for it, but it is never possible to completely separate a signal of external forcing from climate variability — the separation will always be statistical in nature.

Natural climate variability — including the periodic swings between El Nià ± o and La Nià ± a conditions in the Pacific — will sometimes overshadow global warming's influence on hurricanes, Trenberth said.

In essence Tung & Zhou are dining at the denialist's last - chance saloon by invoking a 60 - year natural cycle (their cycle of choice being AMO) resulting in a reduced anthropogenic influence on climate, although they make sure to not directly challenge climate sensitivity by asserting that their findings will impact on assessment of net anthropogenic forcing and leave climate sensitivity estimates unchallenged.

A series of sensitivity tests show that our detection results are robust to observational data coverage change, interpolation methods, influence of natural climate variability on observations, and different model sampling (see Supplementary Information).

«Few of those familiar with the natural heat exchanges of the atmosphere, which go into makings of our climate and weather, would be prepared to admit that activities of man could have any influence on phenomena of so vast a scale.

Such reports could be on topics like climate change's influence on hurricanes, the so - called «pause» in the increase of average global surface temperatures or the climate implications of natural gas.

Has there really been a substantial neglect of solar influences on climate and natural internal variability?

and «We need to take a pragmatic approach to resolve potential issues due to a variety of natural and manmade influences on future climate.»

This has resulted in a very substantial neglect of solar influences on climate and natural internal variability.

So, given that the climate varies due to both natural and human influences (I don't think anybody disputes that), isn't it on Trenberth to prove the human influences outweight the natural, before we switch the null from natural to human influenced?

Our ability to quantify the human influence on global climate is currently limited because the expected signal is still emerging from the noise of natural variability, and because there are uncertainties in key factors.

On the question of hurricanes, the theoretical arguments that more energy and water vapor in the atmosphere should lead to stronger storms are really sound (after all, storm intensity increases going from pole toward equator), but determining precisely how human influences (so including GHGs [greenhouse gases] and aerosols, and land cover change) should be changing hurricanes in a system where there are natural external (solar and volcanoes) and internal (e.g., ENSO, NAO [El Nino - Southern Oscillation, North Atlantic Oscillation]-RRB- influences is quite problematic — our climate models are just not good enough yet to carry out the types of sensitivity tests that have been done using limited area hurricane models run for relatively short times.

Further analyses of long coupled model runs will be critical to resolve the influence of the ocean thermohaline circulation and other natural climate variations on Arctic climate and to determine whether natural climate variability will make the Arctic more or less vulnerable to anthropogenic global warming.»

I wish to highlight an earlier comment I made...» Climate is influenced by dozens of natural factors, which are like dozens of teeter - totters lined up, where down on the right = cooling, and down on the left = warming.

In addition, the amended standards add «natural forces» as an area of study for its possible influence on climate change.

The apparent conflict illustrates that understanding the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO), and other natural variability, is critical for understanding the human influence on climate Yet, they are largely ignored by the IPCC, and its followers including NOAA, and NASA.

There are much better arguments on other items where (C) AGW is on thin ice: climate models which fail on a lot of items like cloud cover, overestimate the influence of aerosols, can't cope with natural variability and therefore fail in their temperature forecasts.

«multiple lines of evidence indicate that human influences have had an increasingly dominant effect on the climate warming observed since the mid-twentieth century» - a handful of papers a year that only most ardent warmists can find against the thousand of natural influence showing papers.

This may be true (there is still plenty of debate on that point) but since there are no good explanations of past natural variability, that merely points out our ignorance of all the factors influencing the climate system.

Betts says:» the authors seem to assume that climate science is entirely focussed on anthropogenic climate change, and that natural variability is only researched as a supplementary issue in order to support the conclusions regarding anthropogenic influence.»

Most global warming skeptics believe that humans have some measurable impact on global temperatures and the climate, but that natural climate forces, over longer periods, will overwhelm the human influence... in addition, skeptics believe that the human influence will not result in the hysterical catastrophic climate disasters presented by doomsday pundits...

In fact, they state that the data «clearly show» that «strong natural variability has been characteristic of the Arctic at all time scales considered,» and they reiterate that the data suggest «that the human influence on rate and size of climate change thus far does not stand out strongly from other causes of climate change.»»

While natural sources of climate variability are significant, multiple lines of evidence indicate that human influences have had an increasingly dominant effect on global climate warming observed since the mid-twentieth century.