Sentences with phrase «paleo records for»

There are good reasons for doing so in the cited articles, specifically the much better historical and paleo records for the NH.

Not exact matches

Moreover, random interactions within the sun's magnetic field can flip the fluctuations from one cycle length to the other, matching the paleo - temperature record for ice ages on Earth for over the past 5.3 million years, when ice ages occurred occurred roughly every 41,000 years until about a million years ago when they switched to a roughly 100,000 - year cycle.

It's surely no coincidence that gut - healing diets, such as Paleo or GAPS, involve cutting right back on sugar and other carbohydrates, and they have a strong track record of being effective for many people.

What evidence is there for the assumption that climate sensitivity based on paleo record is applicable to present day?

My understanding of the paleo - climate record implied (to me) that the wide spread of results from (for instance, the first reports from the climateprediction.net experiment) were a function of their methodology but not a possible feature of the real world.

Since the volume of ice at risk under BAU is within a factor of two of the volume of ice at risk during a deglaciation under orbital forcing, while the forcing is much more rapidly applied under BAU, looking at sea level rise rates in the paleo - record might actually be considered a search for lower limits on what to expect if reticence did not run so strongly in our approach.

Over even longer time scales (hundreds of years) there are a number of paleo - records that correlate with records of cosmogenic isotopes (particularly 10Be and 14C), however, these records are somewhat modulated by climate processes themselves (the carbon cycle in the case of 14C, aerosol deposition and transport processes for 10Be) and so don't offer an absolutely clean attribution.

The geologic legacy of Hurricane Irene: Implications for the fidelity of the paleo - storm record Scott Hippensteel et al., Dept. of Geography and Earth Sciences, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, North Carolina 28223, USA; [email protected].

Neither the paleo record nor current work looking for this feedback support this in any way.

As noted above however as the earth's temperature does not widely oscillate when there are large temporary forcing changes, the explanation for cyclic abrupt climate change in the paleo record is not that the planet amplifies the forcing.

The NOAA Paleoclimatology Reconstructions Network has made available paleo data for download including 92 high - resolution temperature records over the past 2 + millennia.

But, again, the CET record (even as extended by Tony) is the only real continuous regional temperature record we have prior to the mid-19th century so, ignoring paleo data (which are arguably less representative than the CET) it's the best «proxy» we have for a global temperature prior to ~ 1850.

The dramatic variations in temperature seen in the instrumental record seem a more likely explanation for glacial changes than a paleo temp record that is basically static.

After these threats are identified for each resource, then the relative risk from natural - and human - caused climate change (estimated from the global climate model projections, but also the historical, paleo - record and worst case sequences of events) can be compared with other risks in order to adopt the optimal mitigation / adaptation strategy.

There is LOTS of evidence for a global MWP (studies from all over the globe using different paleo methodologies, composite studies from several sites, historical records from all over the civilized world at the time, actual physical evidence, etc..)

These real - world events can be constructed not only from the historical record, but, for example, from the paleo - record and by sequencing different historical time periods together (e.g, the driest 10 years in the historical record, etc).

Apparently according to McKay et al 1991 concentrations as low as 250ppm for extended periods of time (as depicted in the ice - core) would have led to the extinction of certain C4 plant species and this has not been recorded by paleo - botanists.

So for global paleo record we should switch to Loehle 2007, and for longer time span the Greenland drill record is not bad as well.

Facts, being pesky things, have shown that nothing can account for the change in our climate — from paleo records, to ice records, to dendro records, and to heliological studies — and the only thing left, as Sherlock would say, however improbable, is the answer.

Searching for past regional extreme events through the historical and paleo records should be the focus, rather than working to air brush the past global variability.

More substantial changes would be along the lines of «Exploring potential impacts of a 2C world using insights from paleo climate records, modern observations and climate modelling» or «Exploring the potential for tipping points in the climate system before 2C».

For example, we know that if the climate wasn't changing, it would be broken, since the evidence tells us that the climate is in a state of continuous change, moreover; nothing about contemporary change is unusual compared to the paleo record, and this is even true when we compare changes in recent 5 year averages to the changes in multi-century averages recorded in ice cores.

Early TRL projects focused on establishing long tree - ring records from temperature - sensitive boreal forest locations in North American for studies of global change, using dendrochronologically dated wood, to investigate the value of stable isotope ratios in cellulose as paleo - thermometers and developing the necessary computer software for processing the data.

See Annan et al 2005 and 2006 for interesting approach using the paleo record.

Ultimately for me as a non expert, I haven't seen any convincing explanation to explain why the paleo record (which shows a warmer arctic and no corresponding large methane release) isn't a good analogue of the current warming trend in the arctic.

The paleo record is clearly showing a constancy in climate with a variability from 1500 to 1920 centred on around the minus 0.3 to 0.5 C anomaly mark, for the core models.

Worst - case droughts of the 20th century, unlike those of the paleo record, do not contain episodes of many consecutive decades without high flows, so critical for refilling of reservoirs (41).

The oscillations in the paleo record were TOO LARGE for the model to account for.

Even issues which are typically taken to be the sign of a more legitimate skepticism (like arguing for a low sensitivity), are now constrained by data and paleoclimate evidence, and mechanisms that could cause such model errors or misinterpretation of the paleo - record need to be shown by those who argue so confidently against it.

Of for pete's sake, Gavin is only saying that the paleo record during just the past few ice age cycles seems to constrain the «sensitivity of CO2 to temperature» to far less than what Salby seems to be implying.

Paleo proxies, fun entertainment value though they be, add up to a puny fragment of the reliability and utility of the lamentably vague modern instrumental record, for the uses that Climatology would wish to put them, for all the efforts made to clean up the datasets.

A great many people have looked at the paleo record at many locations, and more such records — each for a particular site — are being published.

Also, the extreme event validity is very difficult one for climate models because even in the paleo record we don't have an exact analogue for what we might be looking at in 100 years.

Thanks for your historical perspective on a topic where we have myopically concentrated on paleo - climate evidence but neglected the historical record, which may actually tell us much more.