Sentences with phrase «paleoclimate data as»

Not exact matches

The paleoclimate data, which included mainly changes in the oxygen isotopes of the calcium carbonate deposits, were then compared to similar records from other caves, ice cores, and sediment records as well as model predictions for water availability in the Middle East and west central Asia today and into the future.

Other features of the record are also redated, such as the East African megadroughts (24), which must have terminated at least 10 ka earlier than the previous estimate of 75 ka B.P. Clearly, existing comparisons of the Lake Malawi paleoclimate data to other regional and global records (24, 25, 32) will need to be revised in the light of these findings.

I'm curious, if the mid-holocene event resulted from solar activity, rather than orbital effects, would the resolution of our paleoclimate data really be high enough to determine whether or not these changes were as rapid as the changes we're seeing today?

I'm still reading this para (Page 4) as a gaff: «Paleoclimate data permit evaluation of long - term sensitivity to specified GHG change.

Paleoclimate data reveal instances of rapid global warming, as much as 5 — 6 °C, as a sudden additional warming spike during a longer period of gradual warming [see Text S1].

Any small «upticks» or «downticks» in temperature that last less than several hundred years in our compilation of paleoclimate data are probably not robust, as stated in the paper.

I've also analyzed data (not conclusions, but raw data) relating to paleoclimate reconstructions such as tree rings, ice cores, and (my personal favorite) borehole temperature profiles.

This means that approaches that use the first order approximation to estimate climate sensitivity from the instrumental period (such as Lewis) will underestimate climate sensitivity and approaches that use the first order to estimate climate sensitivity using paleoclimate data (Hansen and others) will overestimate climate sensitivity.

Previous large natural oscillations are important to examine: however, 1) our data isn't as good with regards to external forcings or to historical temperatures, making attribution more difficult, 2) to the extent that we have solar and volcanic data, and paleoclimate temperature records, they are indeed fairly consistent with each other within their respective uncertainties, and 3) most mechanisms of internal variability would have different fingerprints: eg, shifting of warmth from the oceans to the atmosphere (but we see warming in both), or simultaneous warming of the troposphere and stratosphere, or shifts in global temperature associated with major ocean current shifts which for the most part haven't been seen.

Also, there is paleoclimate data that contradicts the ice - core data, such as Stomata and we have 90,000 direct empirical chemical measurements dating back to 1812 of atmospheric with a 3 % accuracy that depicts CO2 as high as 440ppm (Beck 2007).

The information derives in part from paleoclimate data, the record of how climate changed in the past, as well as from measurements being made now by satellites and in the field.

Paleoclimate data are not as helpful for defining the likely rate of sea level rise in coming decades, because there is no known case of growth of a positive (warming) climate forcing as rapid as the anthropogenic change.

Paleoclimate data reveal instances of rapid global warming, as much as 5 — 6 °C, as a sudden additional warming spike during a longer period of gradual warming [see Text S1].

However, paleoclimate data are used as a foundation for climate scientists by providing crucial information such as rates of past climate change and how vegetation and animal populations responded to the change.

Really, it's because the paleoclimate data is pointing to the 3C per doubling of CO2 as being a pretty good number.

«By flipping the data opposite to the interpretation of Tiljander et al, Mann shows the Little Ice Age in Finland as being warmer than the MWP, 100 % opposite to the interpretation of the authors and the paleoclimate evidence.

As where Marcott et al went wrong as climate scientists, when they used paleoclimate data of long millenia time scales in natural variability, with the short decadal time scale (weather) in natural variability and claim to predict the future of where the pendulum of climatology will be in the future, when actually showing that they are confused, what they are representing as evidence of the future climate is in fact their total misunderstanding of climatology and the complex chaotic circumstances that influence the real worlAs where Marcott et al went wrong as climate scientists, when they used paleoclimate data of long millenia time scales in natural variability, with the short decadal time scale (weather) in natural variability and claim to predict the future of where the pendulum of climatology will be in the future, when actually showing that they are confused, what they are representing as evidence of the future climate is in fact their total misunderstanding of climatology and the complex chaotic circumstances that influence the real worlas climate scientists, when they used paleoclimate data of long millenia time scales in natural variability, with the short decadal time scale (weather) in natural variability and claim to predict the future of where the pendulum of climatology will be in the future, when actually showing that they are confused, what they are representing as evidence of the future climate is in fact their total misunderstanding of climatology and the complex chaotic circumstances that influence the real worlas evidence of the future climate is in fact their total misunderstanding of climatology and the complex chaotic circumstances that influence the real world.

However, as Hansen notes, empirical estimates of climate sensitivity based on paleoclimate data are consistent with the sensitivity in climate models of approximately 3 °C for doubled atmospheric CO2.

Hansen and Sato argue that the probable range of climate sensitivity values is not as large as currently believed (unlikely to fall outside the range of 2 to 4 °C for doubled CO2)- both very high and very low values can effectively be ruled out using paleoclimate data.

Our best guide here is probably the paleoclimate data, which tends to indicate we're headed for mid-Pliocene to Miocene - like conditions as we go toward 560 ppm, which again, are about 3C or higher than pre-industrial temperatures.

Steve: the temperature data issues are not really relevant to paleoclimate calibration as the uncertainties and issues are not germane.

Accomplishing this will require synthesizing multiple lines of scientific evidence, including simple and complex models, physical arguments, and paleoclimate data, as well as new modeling experiments to better explore the possibility of extreme scenarios.

Paleoclimate data assimilation is emerging as a novel tool to understand low - frequency climate dynamics, blending multi-proxy paleoclimate observations with numerical simulations of EartPaleoclimate data assimilation is emerging as a novel tool to understand low - frequency climate dynamics, blending multi-proxy paleoclimate observations with numerical simulations of Eartpaleoclimate observations with numerical simulations of Earth's climate.

Based on these data, the 10 - year period, 1146 — 1155, was selected as a scenario of worst - case warm drought from the paleoclimate data for the past 12 centuries over the Southwest.

a) Due to decentered PCA on one small fraction of the data, throw out paleoclimate reconstructions as wrong.

In fact, climate scientists have used paleoclimate data such as that for the ice ages to show that climate sensitivity is likely to be close to the range the IPCC favors.

Anthony invited me to help with the analysis but, as you know, I long ago resolved to spend time on paleoclimate data not temperature data and did not pursue the topic.

-- paleoclimate data reflecting past climate states very different from today — climate response to volcanic eruptions, solar changes and other non-greenhouse gas forcings — timescales different from those relevant for climate stabilization, such as the climate response to volcanic eruptions

Idso's calculations for climate sensitivity are greatly at odds with the paleoclimate data; if sensitivity were as small as he proposes, the Milankovic changes in solar forcing wouldn't be enough to kickstart the climb out of an ice age, but this still presupposes AGW, that CO2 emissions will increase the temperature by some amount.

So as you point out, I looked at longer paleoclimate data and I don't always see the correlations you claim.

As far as # 2 goes, ice core data is used for recent paleoclimate data on CO2 concentration, nothing much earlier than about 1000 years ago, because of the errors inherent in the ice core datAs far as # 2 goes, ice core data is used for recent paleoclimate data on CO2 concentration, nothing much earlier than about 1000 years ago, because of the errors inherent in the ice core datas # 2 goes, ice core data is used for recent paleoclimate data on CO2 concentration, nothing much earlier than about 1000 years ago, because of the errors inherent in the ice core data.

We can obtain this «long - term» climate sensitivity from paleoclimate data by finding the scale factor that causes the GHG forcing to match the paleoclimate temperature change as accurately as possible.

Finally, we comment on several policy issues arising from this controversy: the lack of consistent requirements for disclosure of data and methods in paleoclimate journals, and the need to recognize the limitations of journal peer review as a quality control standard when scientific studies are used for public policy.

«It is unlikely that coastal cities or low - lying areas such as Bangladesh, European lowlands, and large portions of the United States eastern coast and northeast China plains could be protected against such large sea level rise,» states a report co-authored by Hansen, titled «Ice Melt, Sea Level Rise and Superstorms: Evidence from Paleoclimate Data, Climate Modeling, and Modern Observations that 2 °C Global Warming is Highly Dangerous».