Sentences with phrase «pre-petm mean climate»

In regions with continental climate, soils are subject to desiccation, meaning climate change will aggravate problems of salinity, erosion, and desertification.

[Drew T. Shindell, Inhomogeneous forcing and transient climate sensitivity] That means climate change with an increase of more than a degree Celsius compared with the last century is very likely already.

«High latitude places often have late climate departures, but that does not necessarily mean climate change won't impact those places,» Mora said.

Such varied migration rates mean climate change is ripping apart the delicate connections between mountainside species, the team concludes.

Some researchers thought that meant climate just isn't that important a factor in tropical flu outbreaks.

Climate scientists caution that this does not mean climate change is not real.

The NGN article itself gives a good explanation of climate sensitivity and the various studies and estimates of it, and does quote Michael Schlesinger of the University of Illinois saying that Hegerl's result «means climate sensitivity is larger than we thought for 30 years, so the problem is worse than we thought.

«Misconceptions about climate science are rife with those who confuse weather with climate... the presence of large El Nià ± o events before 1850 AD does not mean that climate change has no effect.»

But it might as well mean our climate models are doing a bad job.

Montana's unique geography means climate varies across the state, as it does across the nation.

If a dominance of La Nina / ocean variability, is causing a hiatus, does that mean climate sensitivity is lower?

They are aware the batteries» thermal management means the climate outside is not a problem.

In contrast to the steamy humid rainforests that much of South America is known for, Machu Picchu's altitude is at almost 2445 meters (8000 feet) above sea level, which means its climate is a lot more temperate, and is shrouded year - round in mist for much of each morning.

Cool nights and warm days mean the climate is particularly hospitable to Cabernet Sauvignon... and to visitors who love to explore the valley's charming towns and surrounding vineyards.

The most unfortunate thing is that the somewhat clumsy press - release obscured the true message, which is that physics alone does not rule out high sensitivities, even if you impose the requirement that the model match the present annual mean climate.

Certainly you can't mean the climate science community?

Models are compared primarily to the current climatology and all of the adjusting goes into getting the mean climate / seasonal cycle etc. correct.

The NGN article itself gives a good explanation of climate sensitivity and the various studies and estimates of it, and does quote Michael Schlesinger of the University of Illinois saying that Hegerl's result «means climate sensitivity is larger than we thought for 30 years, so the problem is worse than we thought.

It is important to note that these exercises are done with the mean climate (including the seasonal cycle and some internal variability)-- and once set they are kept fixed for any perturbation experiment.

At the very least he needs to provide a pointer to «the calculations of the sensitivity of the mean climate to a doubling of CO2 concentration» that he has found are ignoring changes in non-radiative atmospheric heat transport.

[This is particularly hard because it would mean the climate was fundamentally unstable].

In such a case, counting the number of records might not indicate whether the climate was becoming more or less extreme, rather just whether there was a shift in the mean climate.

Instead, the model results for, say, the mean climate, or the change in recent decades or the seasonal cycle or response to El Niño events, are compared to the equivalent analyses in the gridded observations.

Some years back, we hypothesized that changes to climate variability, rather than changes to mean climate, might tip the balance towards the chytrid fungus because all pathogens are smaller and have faster metabolisms than their hosts, and thus might acclimate more quickly following short - term temperature shifts [link].

Instead, there were plentiful predictions of no change in mean climate, and indeed, persistence is a very standard naive baseline.

Our results reveal a marked increase in the probability of a 30 - day delay in monsoon onset in 2050, as a result of changes in the mean climate, from 9 - 18 % today (depending on the region) to 30 - 40 % at the upper tail of the distribution.

Or some well meaning Climate «communicator / educator» eg an pro-CC advocate such as Prof Tim Flannery in Australia stumbles on the words and speaks a technical «untruth» and is pilloriaed for it, further undermining the public's and politicians» true knowledge of what the IPCC etc really «meant» to say.

This is the science behind Peter Cox's interview and why he says that «If it turns out that the cooling is stronger than we thought... that means the climate's more sensitive to carbon dioxide than we originally thought, and it means our models may be under sensitive to carbon dioxide.»

, Climate Dynamics, 2005], the conclusion of which is well summarized by the first sentence of their abstract: The potential for the mean climate of the tropical Pacific to shift to more El Niño - like conditions as a result of human induced climate change is subject to a considerable degree of uncertainty..

Since the heat storage capacity of the ocean is > 1000 times that of the atmosphere, having a solid handle on all these is crucial to accurately projecting even average mean climate across multi-decadal time.

With «mean climate», surely the model ensemble mean is meant, however the «real data» to base the tuning on by definition is restricted to the single realisation of Earth's climate (including cloud cover caused by, for instance, multi-decadal oscillations instead of AGW feedback).

IPCC AR5 WG1 Ch.5 says: «The PETM was marked by a massive carbon release and corresponding global ocean acidification (Zachos et al., 2005; Ridgwell and Schmidt, 2010) and, with low confidence, global warming of 4 °C to 7 °C relative to pre-PETM mean climate (Sluijs et al., 2007; McInerney and Wing, 2011).

The figure at the end of this comment by Jim Hansen demonstrates that projections of global mean climate presented in a 1988 senate hearing (17 years ago) have actually been right on the money

And you have to remove short - term variability, because the Paris target applies to mean climate.

About «Tuning»: ``... It is important to note that these exercises are done with the mean climate (including the seasonal cycle and some internal variability)-- and once set they are kept fixed for any perturbation experiment..»

The sample is therefore the present day mean climate, the population is the history of all paleo - climates.

«Changes in the variability of weather and the frequency of extremes will generally have more impact than changes in the mean climate at a particular location.

Another difficulty for the 21st - century projection of TCs (and also for the projection of tropical climate in general) is that it is not certain how ENSO behaves as the mean climate warms.

The current batch of models have a mean climate sensitivity of about 3 C to doubled CO2 (and range between 2.5 and 4.0 degrees)(Paris meeting of IPCC, July 2004), i.e an uncertainty of about 30 %.

[Response: Basically, the term «climatology» is used to mean the «mean climate» and provide a kind of reference level.

«The first nonlinearity we consider is that at higher temperatures the T4 dependence of the Stefan - Boltzmann equation means the climate system is able to more effectively compensate for radiation perturbations than at lower temperatures.

Also, the term «global pattern of warming» implies regional temperature change, which pushes the climate system response discussion to a much higher level of complexity than when simply talking about changes in global - mean climate.

Does that mean the climate is getting kinder?

Most studies have considered just the mean climate and some measures of variability, either globally or for a particular region of interest.

This means the climate response to the extra heat trapped by CO2 will be even greater.

If half of past warming, or about.4 C is due to man, that means climate sensitivity is around 1C, exactly the no - feedback number that climate skeptics have thought it was near for years.

Finally, it remains unclear how changes in the mean climate will ultimately affect ENSO predictability.

21 See, for example, Odile Blanchard and James Perhaus, «Does the Bush Administration's climate policy mean climate protection?»

If it turned out it was erroneous and past climate change was greater than currently thought, this would mean climate is more sensitive than we currently think.

That doesn't mean that climate change has nothing to do with it.