These conclusions are based on
paleoclimate data showing how the Earth responded to past levels of greenhouse gases and on observations showing how the world is responding to today's carbon dioxide amount.
Recently published
paleoclimate data show that conditions in the Near East became more arid during the latter half of the 7th century BC.
Paleoclimate data show that on century and millennial time scales the slow feedbacks are predominately amplifying feedbacks.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0804.1126 «
Paleoclimate data show that climate sensitivity is 3 °C for doubled CO2, including only fast feedback processes.
Paleoclimate data show that on century and millennial time scales the slow feedbacks are predominately amplifying feedbacks.
Paleoclimate data shows global warming began earlier than we thought.
Not exact matches
The findings, published in the journal Nature Communications,
show that integrating evidence from historical writings with
paleoclimate data can advance both our understanding of how the climate system functions, and how climatic changes impacted past human societies.
«d. Reconstructions of
paleoclimate data over the last 60 million years
show that changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide exert a strong control on the climate system.»
«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 world.
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.
«We
show that
paleoclimate data from the Miocene, Pliocene and Pleistocene epochs provide evidence for changing sensitivity through time, probably due to changing boundary conditions due to tectonics.
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.
If it were restricted to 30 years, for instance, the
paleoclimate data should
show that the average temperature should follow very closely the forcing (Milankovitch) curve, which is obviously not the case.
When I published my
paleoclimate reconstruction, it was specifically to
show that leaving out tree rings gave a different result, but the criticism was that it wasn't «good» — but I didn't say the endeavor was even possible and clearly stated the limitations of the
data.