Sentences with phrase «small magnitude of the changes»

However, human activity may have already caused some some changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observation limitations, or are not yet confidently modeled (e.g., aerosol effects on regional climate).

Not exact matches

The new skin can sense changes that are an order of magnitude smaller and have a responsivity that is two orders of magnitude larger than those of other electronic skins over a 45 - degree temperature range.

Small drifts in baseline were observed over the course of the experiments, but these changes had little effect on the interpretation of the data because response magnitude was proportional to baseline activity.

Similarly (and perhaps relatedly), the magnitude of the change in aerosol forcing from ~ 1975 to present relative to the change in all forcings is much smaller than from pre-ind through present, which I think should make the TCR estimated over that period insensitive to the value of E.

Changes in insolation are also thought to have arisen from small variations in solar irradiance, although both timing and magnitude of past solar radiation fluctuations are highly uncertain (see Chapters 2 and 6; Lean et al., 2002; Gray et al., 2005; Foukal et al., 2006).

The discovery of other, smaller magnitude, rapid greenhouse warming events (called hyperthermals) in the millions of years following the PETM provides further opportunities to examine the response of organisms to global climate change.

The actual magnitude of these changes in test scores, however, is not statistically significant at conventional levels and is relatively small compared with Baron's findings.

When you consider that the day to day and month to month swings in the market are magnitudes smaller than the changes in air temperature on the occasions you dare venture outside during an ad break on Fast Money, it kind of brings a bit of perspective.

That increases the size of the temperature change per «small change» of doubling of CO2 by almost one order of magnitude, and many people would dispute that an approximately 10 % GHG - driven temperature increase for a «small change» in greenhouse forcing is a «small temperature change».

... Polar amplification explains in part why Greenland Ice Sheet and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet appear to be highly sensitive to relatively small increases in CO2 concentration and global mean temperature... Polar amplification occurs if the magnitude of zonally averaged surface temperature change at high latitudes exceeds the globally averaged temperature change, in response to climate forcings and on time scales greater than the annual cycle.

Also connect with problem areas and things that may seem counterintuitive or unimaginable to people's lived experience — like scales for instance: of time, of large magnitudes and finiteness, of how seemingly small percentages of compounds or changes in temperature can have large impacts.

In my briefings to the Association of Small Island States in Bali, the 41 Island Nations of the Caribbean, Pacific, and Indian Ocean (and later circulated to all member states), I pointed out that IPCC had seriously and systematically UNDERESTIMATED the extent of climate change, showing that the sensitivity of temperature and sea level to CO2 clearly shown by the past climate record in coral reefs, ice cores, and deep sea sediments is orders of magnitude higher than IPCC's models.

For smaller changes, this may not be so apparent or important (a doubling of CO2 from 280 to 560 ppm may have about the same magnitude of forcing and result in the same magnitude of feedback as halving CO2 from 560 to 280 ppm).

Second, the proposed future effects of rising temperatures on endemicity are at least one order of magnitude smaller than changes observed since about 1900 and up to two orders of magnitude smaller than those that can be achieved by the effective scale - up of key control measures.

In my opinion, a possible global climate change - induced increase of a percent or two here or there in the number of tornadoes / hurricanes / * enter your favorite hazard here * is orders of magnitude smaller (in terms of a problem) in comparison to vulnerability issues.

The GRACE observations over Antarctica suggest a near - zero change due to combined ice and solid earth mass redistribution; the magnitude of our GIA correction is substantially smaller than previous models have suggested and hence we produce a systematically lower estimate of ice mass change from GRACE data: we estimate that Antarctica has lost 69 ± 18 Gigatonnes per year (Gt / yr) into the oceans over 2002 - 2010 — equivalent to +0.19 mm / yr globally - averaged sea level change, or about 6 % of the sea - level change during that period.

This change in the size and location of the coronal holes on the sun has resulted in less solar wind bursts and smaller magnitude solar wind bursts which explains why there is suddenly high latitude cooling.

Third, even if a small imbalance of the small, unmeasurable magnitude expected from CO2 changes could be measured (again, it can't) if would not say anything whatsoever about its cause.

And while by eye I could conjecture 86 % of the one year CO2 rise were temperature - correlated in any yearly cycle, clearly there is much greater temperature variability in the region of Mauna Loa in a year (~ 5 - 10C) than there has been globally since observations started (~ 0.7 C), so one would only consider Dr. Spencer's claims plausible if the rise in CO2 since 1960 were smaller than the change in a single year by a factor of ten, rather than larger by an order of magnitude.

I do not see activity changes of that magnitude occurring on your graph — admittedly the period of coverage is limited to 30 years and is therefore a very small sampling.

One of the problems with irradiance as a driver for climate change is that though the changes seem to be fairly well correlated with the temperature anomaly, many scientists think the magnitude is too small to totally account for temperature changes.

I also find it more feasible that the KNOWN increase in surface temps across the ENTIRE surface of the ocean is responsible rather than an UNKNOWN change of UNKNOWN MAGNITUDE of UNKNOWN SIGN from thermal vents that cover only a relatively small percentage of the ocean floor.

It will be important to realize that the changes projected by the papers will inevitably vary from what would (or will) actually happen, but the probability that they will be off by orders of magnitude seems quite small.

Well, that is fuzzy, but the issue seems to be identifying what constitutes dangerous climate change and eliminating the likelihood that the magnitude of the sensitivity will be small.

I agree that reduction in snow or ice cover resulting from warming constitutes a likely slow positive feedback, but its magnitude may be quite small, at least for the modest changes in surface temperature that can be expected to arise if sensitivity is in fact fairly low, so the Forster / Gregory 06 results may nevertheless be a close approximation to a measurement of equilibrium climate sensitivity.

Another paper in Climate Change in 2007 stated: Studies that have looked at hemispheric and global scales conclude that any urban - related trend is an order of magnitude smaller than decadal and longer time - scale trends evident in the series (e.g., Jones et al., 1990; Peterson et al., 1999)... Thus, the global land warming trend discussed is very unlikely to be influenced significantly by increasing urbanization (Parker, 2006).

So effective are stratocumulus in altering Earth's energy budget that small changes in their aerial coverage could have impacts similar in magnitude to the impacts of all anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases (e.g. Slingo (1990)-RRB-.

4 W / m2 may seem small to you, but is an order of magnitude larger than the solar change associated with the Maunder Minimum and Little Ice Age.

What he shows is that a change in the radiative balance between the surface and the atmosphere even by a larger amount, such as 10 W / m ^ 2 would result in only a very small surface temperature change while a change in the greenhouse effect (i.e., the radiative balance between the earth and space) by 10 W / m ^ 2 results in a much larger surface temperature change (almost 2 orders of magnitude larger if I recall correctly).

The magnitude of these temperature changes is smaller than those seen for DJF.

The bicentennial trend lines clearly diverge from the past 30 or 50 or hundred years, and the most closely fitting explanation for this behavior is anthropogenic causes shifting the trends leaving only a shadow of natural variability superimposed on the sharp centennial scale rise, at about an order of magnitude smaller amplitude than the changes associated with GHGs and dampened by man - made aerosols.

Thus, rather than changing the Earth - sun distance by ~ + / -0.5 % and thus solar TSI by ~ + / -1 % from average, it would change it by two orders of magnitude less (with the annual average effect perhaps smaller still, although varying with Jupiter's alignment with the semimajor axis, etc.).

Total solar irradiance changes, though of small magnitude, do appear to affect sea surface temperatures (SSTs), most obviously at latitudes where cloud cover is small and irradiance is abundant, such as the Northern Hemisphere subtropics during summer.

Over the last 24 years, the magnitude of the ice changes associated with the positive AO trend and the negative ENSO trend is much smaller than the regional ice trends.