Sentences with phrase «other than natural variability»

Not exact matches

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 absence of convincing attribution of periods other than 1976 - present to anthropogenic forcing leaves natural climate variability as the cause — some combination of solar (including solar indirect effects), uncertain volcanic forcing, natural internal (intrinsic variability) and possible unknown unknowns.

Doing it that way would just be less sophisticated and informative, because in some places 1.8 degrees would just by nature of the local natural variability be exceeded much more easily than in some other places, so using that kind of threshold would not be as «fair» and even - handed as the 3 - sigma threshold.

[Dr. Carling has] the complete lack of appreciation of the importance of natural variability on short time scales, the -LSB-...] erroneous belief that any attribution of past climate change to -LSB-...] other [than CO2] forcing means that CO2 has no radiative effect, and a hopeless lack of familiarity of the basic science of detection and attribution.

I take natural in this instance to be anything other than anthropogenic, and variability to be a synonym for change.

The other forecasts, such as for hurricanes, rainfall, and snow cover, are not significantly different than under natural variability, and will advance more slowly than the decadal oscillations.

Suppose someone considered that farming and other land develop such as urban centers, and natural variability was bigger effect on global temperature than CO2?

Then the question becomes: how likely is it that we have simultaneously overestimated the effect of GHGs by a factor of more than 2, and that some combination of natural internal variability and errors in our estimates of the other external forcings can combine to make up the difference?

But what is the mechanism by which «natural variability» could be more important than this, or, I guess, the mechanism by which CO2 might stop accumulating (other than by cutting CO2 emissions)?

For the period 1850 - 1900, the emissions were a lot smaller than the natural variability, thus nature has been a sink in some years and a source in other years.

From where I'm standing - looking at the actual available evidence - I believe natural variability will continue to be the dominant factor as we have little evidence (other than modelled hypothesis) to suggest otherwise.

Mr Jarraud said: «Natural climate variability, caused in part by interactions between our atmosphere and oceans — as evidenced by El Niño and La Niña events — means that some years are cooler than others.

It doesn't mean that there can't be any natural variability that appears as wobbles in the temperature record (or in other climate variables), masking the multi-decadal temperature trend over a time scale shorter than 20 years with the effect that the longer term trend is not statistically detectable in the time series, if one chooses the time period only short enough.

Jan Perlwitz says:» It doesn't mean that there can't be any natural variability that appears as wobbles in the temperature record (or in other climate variables), masking the multi-decadal temperature trend over a time scale shorter than 20 years with the effect that the longer term trend is not statistically detectable in the time series, if one chooses the time period only short enough.»

But interpretation isn't easy, since internal variability and forcings (natural and anthropogenic) other than CO2 can move individual points up and down on the temperature axis without any movement left or right along the cumulative CO2 emissions axis.

Because weather patterns vary, causing temperatures to be higher or lower than average from time to time due to factors like ocean processes, cloud variability, volcanic activity, and other natural cycles, scientists take a longer - term view in order to consider all of the year - to - year changes.

In terms of reasons for model underestimation, the apparent «preferred» explanation of «the ocean ate it» does not get any play here, other than in context of a brief consideration of natural internal variability.

Max Anacker and others have demonstrated peak CO2 well under two doublings and anything like 1 degree C / doubling leaves AnthroCO2 effect weaker than natural variability.

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).

Cherry picking segments within the natural variability proves noting other than the fact that limited views are often the products of limited minds.

Second, the uncertainty of Anthro is substantially less than the uncertainty of the other four (including Natural forcings (Nat), and Internal Variability (Intern Var), which have an uncertainty about that of Anthro, but centered on, or very near zero) because their uncertainties are not independent.

I'd agree with you (and so would many others) that «the climate in the UK is probably more variable than most, so any recent cold winters are more likely to be due to natural variability than any underlying trend».

Natural Variability Doesn't Account for Observed Temperature Increase In it's press release announcement, NASA points out that while there are other factors than greenhouse gases contributing to the amount of warming observed — changes in the sun's irradiance, oscillations of sea surface temperatures in the tropics, changes in aerosol levels in the atmosphere — these factors are not sufficient to account for the temperature increases observed since 1880.

The «pause» discussion continues (see RC for a summary of recent coverage), which seems a bit silly to me, because it isn't really a «pause» at all, just a continued anthropogenically - forced warming with some other (anthropogenic and natural) forcings and internal variability added on, such that the trend is a little lower than most expected.