Sentences with phrase «solar orbital changes»

It made a big difference when only solar orbital changes did anything.

Not exact matches

Earlier studies on the sensitivity of tropical cyclones to past climates have only analyzed the effect of changes in the solar radiation from orbital forcing on the formation of tropical cyclones, without considering the feedbacks associated to the consequent greening of the Sahara.

It is well - established in climatology that different causes and mechanisms have caused climate changes in the past (orbital variations, plate tectonics, solar variability, volcanic eruptions, etc.), so that a cause - effect relationship has to be determined for each individual case, rather than looking for one overall «driver».

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?

Periods of volcanism can cool the climate (as with the 1991 Pinatubo eruption), methane emissions from increased biological activity can warm the climate, and slight changes in solar output and orbital variations can all have climate effects which are much shorter in duration than the ice age cycles, ranging from less than a decade to a thousand years in duration (the Younger Dryas).

While natural global warming during the ice ages was initiated by increased solar radiation caused by cyclic changes to Earth's orbital parameters, there is no evident mechanism for correcting Anthropogenic Global Warming over the next several centuries.

Natural factors contributing to past climate change are well documented and include changes in atmospheric chemistry, ocean circulation patterns, solar radiation intensity, snow and ice cover, Earth's orbital cycle around the sun, continental position, and volcanic eruptions.

It is believed that the PETM was likely initiated by changes of the orbital parameters of the Earth (eccentricity, obliquity and precession of axis) causing an increase in the intensity and distribution of solar radiation reaching the earth (Sexton et al, 2011).

In other words, if you argue that the Earth has a low climate sensitivity to CO2, you are also arguing for a low climate sensitivity to other influences such as solar irradiance, orbital changes, and volcanic emissions.

The consensus is that several factors are important: atmospheric composition (the concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane); changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun known as Milankovitch cycles (and possibly the Sun's orbit around the galaxy); the motion of tectonic plates resulting in changes in the relative location and amount of continental and oceanic crust on the Earth's surface, which could affect wind and ocean currents; variations in solar output; the orbital dynamics of the Earth - Moon system; and the impact of relatively large meteorites, and volcanism including eruptions of supervolcanoes.

As I understand it, they are more or less trying to equate the 0.8 C per 1 W / m ^ 2 needed for a 3C rise from 2xCO2 (0.8 x 3.7 = 3C) to the +7 W / m ^ 2 of net incident solar from the orbital change that ultimately resulted in about an increase of 5 - 6C from the LGM to the current interglacial period (0.8 x 7 = 5.6 C).

These orbital variations, which can be calculated from astronomical laws (Berger, 1978), force climate variations by changing the seasonal and latitudinal distribution of solar radiation (Chapter 6).

As mentioned by Chris Colose in # 6, Earth's orbital tilt in the Eemian brought a lot of sunlight to the Arctic in the summer even our planet's overall solar input was not changed.

The theory suggests that the system is pushed by greenhouse gas changes and warming — as well as solar intensity and Earth orbital eccentricities - past a threshold at which stage the components start to interact chaotically in multiple and changing negative and positive feedbacks — as tremendous energies cascade through powerful subsystems.

The finger pushing the balance below can be likened to changes in greenhouse gases, solar intensity or orbital eccentricity.

Although the primary driver of glacial — interglacial cycles lies in the seasonal and latitudinal distribution of incoming solar energy driven by changes in the geometry of the Earth's orbit around the Sun («orbital forcing»), reconstructions and simulations together show that the full magnitude of glacial — interglacial temperature and ice volume changes can not be explained without accounting for changes in atmospheric CO2 content and the associated climate feedbacks.

Based on the comparison between reconstructions and simulations, there is high confidence that not only external orbital, solar and volcanic forcing, but also internal variability, contributed substantially to the spatial pattern and timing of surface temperature changes between the Medieval Climate Anomaly and the Little Ice Age (1450 to 1850).

This may then lead to additional changes, for example, the incorporation of ozone feedbacks to solar changes, or the calculation of vegetation feedbacks to orbital forcing — which in each case improved the match to the observations.

[Response: the Milankovitch timescale is long and the forcing barely varies due to orbital changes over 100 years so no, they aren't included (they would be for people modelling the last glacial maximum); solar forcing is modelled by change in total solar irradiance (probably as a total number; not sure if changes at different wavelengths are included)-- William]

Abstract: We present evidence to show that changes in the Sun's equatorial rotation rate are synchronized with changes in its orbital motion about the barycentre of the Solar System.

Multiple causal factors have been suggested for the LIA: insolation change due to orbital cycles; low solar activity; high volcanic activity; and reduced atmospheric CO2 due to forest regrowth following human population collapses (the «Black Death» in Europe and Asia, and Columbian contact in the Americas.)

They are not tuned to trends, events (such as Pinatubo), paleo - climates (6kyr BP, LGM, 8.2 kyr event, D / O events, the PETM, the Maunder Minimum or the Eocene), other forcings (solar, orbital etc.)-- thus every match to those climate changes is «out of sample» in the sense you mean.

There absolutely is climate change in accordance with the cycles of glaciation, orbital cycles, solar cycles and related for millions of years.

I could go through a dozen... examples: the skill associated with solar cycles, changing the ozone in the stratosphere; the skill associated with orbital changes over 6,000 years.

The change in insolation due to orbital changes are significant, of the order of 50 W / m2, or 50 times larger than the change of TSI over the solar cycle.

Increasing CO2 does increase the greenhouse effect, but there are other factors which determine climate, including solar irradiance, volcanism, albedo, orbital variations, continental drift, mountain building, variations in sea currents, changes in greenhouse gases, even cometary impacts.

When reconstructing Earth's climate history, it can't be explained without including all the various influences, including solar irradiance, volcanism, albedo, orbital variations, continental drift, mountain building, variations in sea currents, changes in greenhouse gases, even cometary impacts.

In the past, orbital forcing's, solar changes and other things have been the big drivers.

When we do, no matter how good the climate model is it will not be able to overcome deficiencies in our ability to predict the things that affect climate — solar activity, ocean cycles, etc — and it will not be able to overcome deficiencies in our understanding of how things that affect climate actually work — solar activity, Earth orbital changes, etc..

Complexity theory suggests that the system is pushed by such things as solar intensity and Earth orbital eccentricities — past a threshold at which stage the components start to interact chaotically in multiple and changing negative and positive feedbacks — as tremendous energies cascade through powerful subsystems.

However, they do argue that the reconstruction reflects long - term changes in «orbital configurations» that have continually reduced Northern Hemisphere summer «insolation» (solar irradiance) over the past two millennia.

It looks more like the orbital force change has more impact that solar cycle changes, especially in the North Atlantic region.

The literature since the AR4, and the availability of more simulations of the last millennium with more complete forcing, including solar, volcanic and greenhouse gas influences, and generally also land use change and orbital forcing) and more sophisticated models, to a much larger extent coupled climate or coupled earth system models, some of them with interactive carbon cycle, strengthens these conclusions.

Short term solar cycles of the 27 day rotation periods, due to the polarity shifts in magnetic flux changes in the solar wind, The moon has a North / South declinational component as part of it's set of orbital parameters.

Climate change may be due to natural external forcings, such as changes in solar emission or slow changes in the earth's orbital elements; natural internal processes of the climate system; or anthropogenic forcing.»

That is before we accept that there are uncontrollable, and unmodel - able external drivers to climate, such as the cycle 23/24 deep solar minimum, orbital changes, or catastrophic events like volcanos and meteorites that render these equations unsolvable to any reasonable degree of approximation.

Kukla showed how past changes in orbital cycles very slightly altered the amount of solar energy hitting the Earth, leading to past glacial and interglacial periods.

At the climate scale solar, orbital and greenhouse gas changes may perturb the fluid flow through the system and the energy dynamic of the entire planet.

The authors found that consistent with previous research, changes in solar and volcanic activity, land cover, and incoming solar radiation due to the Earth's orbital cycles were the main contributors to the cooling between the MWP and LIA (the years 900 — 1600), and probably also caused the cooling over the full 2,000 - year period.

It's a combination of factors - the Earth's orbital cycles, land cover changes, and solar and volcanic activity changes.

The solar irradiance averaged over the earth averaged over the year doesn't change with orbital variability.

The former is the result of internal variability and radiative forcing (solar output and volcanic activity) rather than long - term changes in Earth's orbital geometry.

My take is that the cause of the change is mostly solar / orbital and oceanic oscillations.

135: It has been suggested that the 100 ka cycle in oxygen isotope data is due to changes in orbital inclination relative to the invariable plane (perpendicular to the solar system's angular momentum).

Examples of forcings are volcanic eruptions, solar and orbital variations and anthropogenic (human) changes to the composition of the atmosphere.

It's also «UNKNOWN» how much of the historical temperature changes have been due to GTGs, and how much has been due to orbital forcing, ie, increases in solar radiation, or perhaps long - term shifts in ocean circulation.»

The theory suggests that the system is pushed by greenhouse gas changes and warming — as well as solar intensity and Earth orbital dynamics — past a threshold at which stage the components start to interact chaotically in multiple and changing negative and positive feedbacks — as tremendous energies cascade through powerful subsystems.

The other source is the nonlinear planetary response to changing solar and orbital factors.

The system is pushed by changes in greenhouse gases, solar intensity or orbital eccentricity.

The theory suggests that the system is pushed by greenhouse gas changes and warming — as well as solar intensity and Earth orbital eccentricities — past a threshold at which stage the components start to interact chaotically in multiple and changing negative and positive feedbacks — as tremendous energies cascade through powerful subsystems.