Sentences with phrase «paleo data»

From the point of view of science, we need better easily accessible analysis of the paleo data than we have now available.

Without specifying the region and the particular impacts, the approach I am taking is to look at regional paleo data for such catastrophic events / periods in the past, and understanding what caused them and whether they could happen in the 21st century.

however, simulation of a broad range of paleoclimates (and verification against whatever paleo data is available, given all the uncertainties, can help here.

«the approach I am taking is to look at regional paleo data for such catastrophic events / periods in the past, and understanding what caused them and whether they could happen in the 21st century.»

He claims to prefer empiricism to theoretical models, yet when the paleo data supports the higher climate sensitivity simulated by climate models, he blames some unknown mechanism.

This is a well - known challenge in estimating ESS from paleo data, and this method doesn't avoid it.

Owing to the problems in using both historical and paleo data in documenting the magnitude of natural internal climate variability, climate models seem to be best option.

One of the reasons many estimates from paleo data overestimate the global sensitivity is because the sensitivity at the poles is much larger than that at the equator.

To KW, 28, I believe the paleo data are typically century or longer averages.

And regardless of the accuracy of this paleo data, we are talking roughly 4 degrees coming out of the ice age over 8,000 years.

• Accept that the energy - balance models are the strong part of climate - science, being founded on thermodynamics, calibrated by paleo data, and verified by the secular rise in global energy - balance measures.

The paleo data... well, read the articles.

They look like great examples of graphs that use the «trick» of adding the temperature record to paleo data.

Over very long periods of time (i.e. paleo data) there are many additional uncertainties.

Steve, with his meticulous analysis of many paleo data tweaking schemes, has shown far more mathematical and scientific credibility than the climate «scientists» that foster questionable practices.

Have you considered Steve McIntyre's statistical expertise or his extensive examination of the statistics of paleo data?)

Due to the lack of a good explanation for this onset of cooling, an objective scientist should select the fully formed theory A as more plausible unless good evidence was forthcoming for the alternative half - theory B. Hansen, of course, already knows that CO2 sensitivity is high because the heating half - cycle of the paleo data tells him so.

For this latter interval formal pdfs can for the first time be calculated for paleo data.

Because it's the only way you can explain the paleo data?

When reviewing another example of presenting uncertainties in Paleo data (AR4) david Rind had the fllowing advice for briffa

Both waffled a bit, although they both admitted that paleo data are suspect for estimating TCR and ECS.

BBD, The oceans have settling times of 5,000 years indicated in the paleo data.

And if you look at the paleo data, you find that not only to the poles warm in excess of what the models predict, in recent geologic ages you can see a North - then - South pattern, presumably due to 1.

So the paleo data also quite likely missed past increases that occurred long before human CO2 emissions had any effect, such as the MWP, meaning that today's warming is quite likely not that different from what happened a few centuries ago.»

On paleo data, I think the real problem is two-fold: first of all, there is the flimsy and dicey nature of the proxy data being used and the tiny GH effect that's being read in, which you mention, but then there is the more basic problem that these studies have almost exclusively been «searches for proof» (that «CO2 is the climate control knob», as Richard Alley puts it), rather than objective «searches for the truth».

Do you feel equally as comfortable to argue, paleosensitivity = 2 - 4.5 K Therefore, the net cloud feedback is positive If no, then you must admit that it would be hard to test a net negative cloud feedback against paleo data without having any models available that include such a feedback.

This leaves them in something of a quandary: simple logic dictates that if their hypothesis is correct, then they have no way of knowing whether an equation they use for calibrating the paleo data is correct.

In fact, the paleo data don't even pick up this recent increase unless they are manipulated by arbitrary re-dating, which is the «trick» employed by Marcott et al..

With a skewed starting point, one can «prove» anything with paleo data (as Michael Mann demonstrated).

The two researchers also discount thermometer readings and «give great weight to the paleo data for which the uncertainties are much greater,» Stott says.

That paleo data smooths the CO2 record, therefore there MUST have been large unseen swings — no it doesn't prove that.

To that end I provided paleo data that is required for climate scale analysis.

Because it showed the abrupt changes of the Younger Dryas, which corroborated other paleo data, it became the «paradigm shifting» basis for largely unsupported, academic conjectures about «abrupt climate change.»

The Phanerozoic paleo data can support one thing and the opposite.

monty — don't you agree that those estimates based on paleo data should have wide ranges since these estimates have very significant margins of error?

It points out that if your paleo data is dominated by the NH summer, you will exaggerate the Milankovitch effect of NH summers cooling due to the precession cycle that affects the perihelion season.

-- Do you think there was an effort to hide uncertainty in paleo data?

And replacing paleo data that doesn't give the desired result with instrumental data that does is in bad taste (as in «hide the decline»).

It has always concerned me whenever paleo data is spliced with modern recordings.

So far so good, but the base theory gives only 1K without feedbacks and those larger values seem to come from an odd assortment of biased interpretations of unreliable, cherry - picked and ambiguous paleo data combined with some circular reasoning from the use of other models.

There is an obvious reason you don't want to put the temperature record next to the paleo data, but that would seem political rather than scientific.

I was saying that the term «observations» doesn't apply to studies deriving climate sensitivity from paleo data.

• Paleo data (of multiple independent forms) affirm a strong CO2 - climate correlation • Paleo data (of multiple independent forms) affirm a 20th century «hockey stick blade» of warming.

If the paleo data alone supported your position I would probably have to agree with you.

Craig Loehle claims [wrongly, and without citations] «Only those [studies] based on models [or on paleo data] get the high IPCC sensitivity.»

Vaughan Pratt said, «cd, you can't compare paleo data with satellite data because the time constants differ by orders of magnitude.

My understanding is that while CO2 and temperature are correlated in the paleo data, the rise of CO2 comes some 800 years after the rise in temperature.

It seems strange that you talk about paleo data, and then claim therre has been enough time to test Svensmark's hypothesis, when the time has been miniscule on a paleo scale.

For these reasons I trust the sensitivity based on the paleo data far more than I trust the sensitivity based on the instrumental period, and that trust is vindicated by the level of uncertainty associated with the sensitivity derived from each.

So, I do nt think the paleo data can ever «show» anything.