Sentences with phrase «term by natural variability»

One advantage of the theory that there has been a warming trend occasionally obscured in the short term by natural variability is that we have a mechanism that explains why there should be a warming trend (CO2) and mechanisms for explaining the variability (IIRC ENSO is responsible for quite a lot of it).

Not exact matches

«This is important for regional planning, because it allows policymakers to identify places where climate change dominates the observed sea level rise and places where the climate change signal is masked by shorter - term regional variability caused by natural ocean climate cycles.»

Ultimately, in forests not otherwise limited by energy or nutrients variability in moisture availability with natural and climate oscillations may drive establishment success between years (League and Veblen 2006), with indirect disturbance effects (e.g., fires, landslides, insect outbreaks, and pathogen attacks) greatly affecting long - term recruitment success (Clark et al. 2016).

Natural variability is primarily controlled by exchange of heat between the ocean and the atmosphere, but it is an extremely complex process and if we want to develop better near - term predictive skills — which is looking not at what's going to happen in the next three months but what's going to happen between the next year and 10 years or 20 years or so — if we want to expand our understanding there, we have to understand natural variability better than we doNatural variability is primarily controlled by exchange of heat between the ocean and the atmosphere, but it is an extremely complex process and if we want to develop better near - term predictive skills — which is looking not at what's going to happen in the next three months but what's going to happen between the next year and 10 years or 20 years or so — if we want to expand our understanding there, we have to understand natural variability better than we donatural variability better than we do today.

Ice - sheet responses to decadal - scale ocean forcing appear to be less important, possibly indicating that the future response of the Antarctic Ice Sheet will be governed more by long - term anthropogenic warming combined with multi-centennial natural variability than by annual or decadal climate oscillations.»

For decades to come, we're locked into generally rising temperatures, with shorter - term temperature shifts * — up or down — shaped most by natural variability in the system (as with the recent plateau in temperatures).

The problem with your statement is that 1) 1998 was a rather large outlier caused by the strongest El Nino on record, meaning the underlying trend continued unperturbed right past 1998 until ~ 2002 in that graph (the Mark I eyeball at work again), and 2) 2002 to present (and even 1998 to present) does not constitute the long term trend as 12 (or 17) years is far short of the ~ 30 * years needed to detect the underlying trend from the year to year noise of natural variability.

Skeptical101 # 14 My interpretation and synopsis of the considerable technical detail and references provided by Tom Curtis # 15 & One Planet # 16, # 17 is that your»... not use it as an argument to support AGW» is correct if used over periods in which short term natural variability influences the trend strongly (< 30 years was mentioned sometimes) and, in particular, the models are not able to predict the ENSO conditions at all well.

Short - term climate variability is a term typically used to describe the natural range of temperatures and weather patterns experienced by the Earth within shorter periods.

It just strikes me that given this history, adaptation is the only viable strategy but also that there are large natural variability things with negative and positive short term feedbacks that are constrained by nonlinear effects and other offsetting feedbacks.

In my earlier posting, I tried to make the distinction that global climate change (all that is changing in the climate system) can be separated into: (1) the global warming component that is driven primarily by the increase in greenhouse gases, and (2) the natural (externally unforced) variability of the climate system consisting of temperature fluctuations about an equilibrium reference point, which therefore do not contribute to the long - term trend.

Considering the large natural variability and relatively small forcing present in the real world, as compared to the forcing imposed by doubling CO2 concentrations in the simulations, this implies that using observations to constrain the cloud feedback is a challenging task and requires reliable long - term measurements.»

«Even accounting for all uncertainties and limitations, the temperature change could not be realistically explained by natural variability alone, implying a long - term human signal,» Will told me.

On the other hand, some of the long - term change in the AMO could be driven by natural variability, e.g. fluctuations in thermohaline flow.

That data reflects fully the natural year - to - year up - and - down readings caused partly by natural «short - term variability» that «always has and always will be present in the climate system.»

Long term trends can not be explained by natural variability because it does not create energy it simply moves it around the climate system.

If you assume that the model runs are basically correct in the long term (ie, that the amount of warming that they predict in the long term is going to happen, and that the «pause» is just a pause caused by natural variation), then it is a simple matter to plot the contribution from natural variability.

Research suggests that long - term drying trends over southern Australia can not be explained by natural variability alone.

Thus, future climate trends in regions affected by the NAO are best conveyed in terms of an expected range that incorporates both the natural variability and the forced climate change signal.

Our results suggest that the decadal AO and multidecadal LFO drive large amplitude natural variability in the Arctic making detection of possible long - term trends induced by greenhouse gas warming most difficult.

I don't consider myself to be an expert by any means but in the few years I have been taking an interest in the subject of climate change I have tried to educate myself as much as possible about the various scientific arguments surrounding the subject, and one thing that has constantly been impressed upon my mind is that when there is a long term trend caused by increasing GHG levels there will periods when it is masked (or accentuated) by short term natural variability.

Now forced to explain the warming hiatus, Trenberth has flipped flopped about the PDO's importance writing «One of the things emerging from several lines is that the IPCC has not paid enough attention to natural variability, on several time scales,» «especially El Niños and La Niñas, the Pacific Ocean phenomena that are not yet captured by climate models, and the longer term Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) which have cycle lengths of about 60 years.»

They then looked at whether these changes could be explained as natural or as a consequence of human influence, and pinned a proportion of the blame on natural variability − some of it driven by long - term changes in the tropics.

The IPCC, cursed with the tunnel vision of political objectives and limited by their terms of reference did not accommodate natural variability.

They are expropriating the use of the term «natural variability» — which is widely used by skeptics — in a limited way in order to serve their purposes.

The explanation that is given regarding the drop in Marcott et al that finishes the reliable part of the proxy is that the combination of different lenses through which we view the LIA period (using Marcott et al, Mann et al, and the earliest parts of the temperature record) posit that the LIA itself is a bump - down combination of a negative portion of short - term natural variability augmented by a bottoming out of the long - term forcings that were cooling at the time.

R Gates - short - term sea surface temperatures are a poor diagnostic tool for global warming because they are strongly influenced by natural variability.

So really forced = external and unforced = internal both terms relative to a specific system, but either is «natural variability» not driven by human activity.

In a glossy brochure, it revealed it had a «new system» that could predict the future, by combining analysis of natural variability with long - term trends.

The climate is chaotic, nudged over the long - term by specific unique combinations for forcing, with a lot of wiggly natural variability «noise» over the shorter time frames.

Second, misleading claims could be «spun» from legitimate studies or from circumstance — for example, a 2008 study in Nature which showed that long - term greenhouse warming could be masked by natural variability became a claim that «warming had stopped.»

When you look more closely at the annual temperature record, you can see how the long - term warming trend — for the most part caused by human activities — is manifesting itself along with shorter - term natural variability in the climate system.

A first and necessary step is to reduce the systematic propagation of error in the direction and magnitude (imposed by assuming constancy in short - term experiments) of effect size by embracing the challenges of simultaneously incorporating both short - and long - term natural variability [111] in empirical investigations.