Not exact matches
Indeed
there is evidence that
over a
longer timescale, sexual activity among young adults has increased.
Climate scientists would say in response that changes in ocean circulation can't sustain a net change in global temperature
over such a
long period (ENSO for example might raise or lower global temperature on a
timescale of one or two years, but
over decades
there would be roughly zero net change).
Over very long time periods such that the carbon cycle is in equilibrium with the climate, one gets a sensitivity to global temperature of about 20 ppm CO2 / deg C, or 75 ppb CH4 / deg C. On shorter timescales, the sensitivity for CO2 must be less (since there is no time for the deep ocean to come into balance), and variations over the last 1000 years or so (which are less than 10 ppm), indicate that even if Moberg is correct, the maximum sensitivity is around 15 ppm CO2 / deg C. CH4 reacts faster, but even for short term excursions (such as the 8.2 kyr event) has a similar sensitiv
Over very
long time periods such that the carbon cycle is in equilibrium with the climate, one gets a sensitivity to global temperature of about 20 ppm CO2 / deg C, or 75 ppb CH4 / deg C. On shorter
timescales, the sensitivity for CO2 must be less (since
there is no time for the deep ocean to come into balance), and variations
over the last 1000 years or so (which are less than 10 ppm), indicate that even if Moberg is correct, the maximum sensitivity is around 15 ppm CO2 / deg C. CH4 reacts faster, but even for short term excursions (such as the 8.2 kyr event) has a similar sensitiv
over the last 1000 years or so (which are less than 10 ppm), indicate that even if Moberg is correct, the maximum sensitivity is around 15 ppm CO2 / deg C. CH4 reacts faster, but even for short term excursions (such as the 8.2 kyr event) has a similar sensitivity.
It would require a much stronger relationship of temperature driving CO2 than occurred during the ice age — interglacial oscillations (and it is also important to remember that those changes occurred
over much
longer timescales too... which is the presumed reason why
there is a several hundred year lag time between temperatures starting to rise or fall and CO2 starting to rise or fall).
However,
there do also seem to be lunar and solar cycles which take place
over longer timescales, e.g., the 18.6 year lunar cycle.
In addition,
there are numerous uncertainties in the climate models themselves, due to the challenge of numerically simulating all relevant aspects of the climate system
over long timescales of decades to centuries.
Assuming a CR - cloud connection exists,
there are various factors which could potentially account for a lack of detection of this relationship
over both
long and short
timescales studies, including: uncertainties, artefacts and measurement limitations of the datasets; high noise levels in the data relative to the (likely low) amplitude of any solar - induced changes; the inability of studies to effectively isolate solar parameters; or the inability to isolate solar - induced changes from natural climate oscillations and periodicities.
Climate scientists would say in response that changes in ocean circulation can't sustain a net change in global temperature
over such a
long period (ENSO for example might raise or lower global temperature on a
timescale of one or two years, but
over decades
there would be roughly zero net change).