Sentences with phrase «rather than the natural variability»

The researchers, from the University of Reading and University of Iowa, found that large parts of the projected changes in AR frequency and intensity would be down to thermodynamic changes in the atmosphere, rather than the natural variability of the climate, suggesting that it is a response to anthropogenic climate change.

Is it not the case that if the relative lack of El Niño's and predominance of La Nina's is in fact due to global warming, rather than natural variability, then the current increase in the rate of warming of the ocean below 700m may continue.

Might it be speculated that a change in ENSO (more frequent La Niñas) is an aspect of global warming, rather than natural variability?

In reality we've seen about 0.5 — 0.6 °C of warming above mid-20th Century temperature, so perhaps at the 5σ level or 99.9 % confidence that the warming is due to external forcing (principally CO2) rather than natural variability.

Modelers countenance «internal variability» rather than natural variability and regularly confuse the two.

Not exact matches

They concluded that the heavy rains in Europe last year were likely due to natural variability in the climate system rather than climate change.

These variations originate primarily from fluctuations in carbon uptake by land ecosystems driven by the natural variability of the climate system, rather than by oceans or from changes in the levels of human - made carbon emissions.

In fact, he says its slowing could be mainly due to natural variability, rather than a result of climate change.

To me this is highly suggestive of natural multi-decadal variability, rather than a forced change6, but the jury is still out.

A conclusion is that natural variability, rather than long - term climate change, dominates the SST and heat flux changes over this 23 - yr period.

«It's important to determine where we believe that some of the recent trends in circulation could potentially be linked with climate change, rather than just natural variability,» Ted Shepherd, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Reading in the U.K., said in an email.

It is a small signal that is not easy to detect amongst the natural variability; most of the anthropogenic warming is still to come (the point of conducting science is to give an early warning, rather than just wait until the facts are obvious to everyone).

I know you have to be cautious but isn't this a strong indication that the lower rate of surface and lower troposphere warming in recent years is due to natural unforced variability rather than climate forcings?

My understanding is that GCMs are run several times with known forcings (as far as we can determine them) but random natural variability (e.g. ENSO), so the end result is an «ensemble» of model runs characterised by mean, standard deviation etc. rather than following precisely the year - to - year variations of global temperature.

The surprisingly rapid decline in air - sea partial pressure difference (ΔpCO2) is primarily a response to an elevated water column inventory of dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC), which, in turn, reflects mostly anthropogenic CO2 input rather than natural interannual variability.

... we strongly support Delworth and Knutson's (2000) contention that this high - latitude warming event represents primarily natural variability within the climate system, rather than being caused primarily by external forcings, whether solar forcing alone (Thejll and Lassen, 2000) or a combination of increasing solar irradiance, increasing anthropogenic trace gases, and decreasing volcanic aerosols.

Large and Yeager (2012) examined global ocean average net heat flux variability using the CORE data set over 1984 — 2006 and concluded that natural variability, rather than long - term climate change, dominates heat flux changes over this relatively short, recent period.

Nonetheless, if the study means what I think it does, it will be a long time before any «short - term» (multi-decadal) trend in hurricane losses can be attributed to global warming rather than to socio - economic factors and / or natural variability.

The «pause» highlights the fact that we don't know «natural variability» so the «pause» becomes the bone of contention rather than the awareness that: no, we don't know natural variability and it is possible that the effects / truth / reality of natural variability will put Tyndall back into the bottle.

Curry not only takes the extreme range of this — which is illogical since, contorted arguments to argue otherwise aside, she even goes beyond it: to, as quoted above, ludicrously conclude from all this that not only is it not just «reasonably possible» that half could be due to natural variation that just happens to coincide with what we would expect to see from the atmospheric alteration inadvertently undertaken, but that rather than it being somewhere in the middle of up to half being due to variability, or a similarly large portion in fact being veiled, but all of what «could» on the one end of the range be, in fact, IS, but then goes beyond that.

Senator James Inhofe used the article as proof that climate change is caused by natural variability rather than human activity.

On shorter times scales you tend to see the stair - step progression caused by natural variability (primarily the El Niñ0 / La Niña cycles) rather than the linear trend caused by human - induced changes to the atmosphere.

I was surprised there was no mention of changes in global albedo or cloud cover in the paper, but I assume that AR5 includes them under «natural variability» rather than forcings.

The odds of this happening by chance — that is, rather than due to a combination of manmade pollution and natural climate variability — are less than 1 - in - 27 million, according to the climate research and journalism group Climate Central.

Translation: Natural variability in the atmosphere / ocean dynamics of the northern Pacific Ocean rather than human - caused global warming can largely explain the century - long rise in temperature in the Pacific Northwest.

Again I want to emphasize that my use of the temperature change rate, rather than temperature, as the predicted variable is based upon the expectation that these natural modes of climate variability represent forcing mechanisms — I believe through changes in cloud cover — which then cause a lagged temperature response.This is what Anthony and I are showing here:

What this almost certainly means is there is natural variability at play (rather than anything wrong with the assumption that an increase in atmospheric CO2 would tend to warm the planet).

We have been focused on climate models rather than on climate dynamics and theory that is needed to understand the effects of the sun on climate, the network of natural internal variability on multiple time scales, the mathematics of extreme events, and the predictability of a complex system characterized by spatio - temporal chaos.

In their minds, they need to make this case because they are still having trouble explaining «the pause,» and because they continue to insist that temperatures are on an ever upward track, rather than operating within a framework of natural variability.

Or else you mis - applied his «during the 20th century» to modify «study» rather than «natural variability».

It seems to me if someone was to make the case of natural climate variability, they'd have to supply their own temperature reconstruction, to the same statistical robustness indicated here, rather than to simply declare all temperature reconstructions as not good enough (because then it would mean that either conjecture about temperature history is equally valid).

-------- I agree that is is too bad that some are so transfixed on the rather limited and rather small energy content and low thermal inertia of the troposphere as displayed in surface temperatures, but it certainly provides some fuel for the endless chatter and yipping of denialists as the surface temperatures exhibit far more natural variability than the larger metric of ocean heat content.

`... rather than on climate dynamics and theory that is needed to understand the effects of the sun on climate, the network of natural internal variability on multiple time scales, the mathematics of extreme events, and predictability of a complex system characterized by spatio - temporal chaos.

(1) to acknowledge that the AR4 conclusions are not exclusively model - based, and (2) to identify to the extent feasible major fluctuations that might compete with GHGs rather than refer to them abstractly as climate variability, so that readers can assess for themselves how important they believe these sources of variation might have been during the particular interval cited by AR4, and whether it is necessary to invoke unidentified variables to make natural variation a potent competitor to anthropogenic forcings.

If you want to incorporate any of this in your revision, the two points I would most recommend are (1) to acknowledge that the AR4 conclusions are not exclusively model - based, and (2) to identify to the extent feasible major fluctuations that might compete with GHGs rather than refer to them abstractly as climate variability, so that readers can assess for themselves how important they believe these sources of variation might have been during the particular interval cited by AR4, and whether it is necessary to invoke unidentified variables to make natural variation a potent competitor to anthropogenic forcings.