Comparing modern instrumental measurements to long -
term paleoclimate data is not a simple task.
Comparing modern instrumental measurements to long -
term paleoclimate data is not a simple task.
Not exact matches
I'm still reading this para (Page 4) as a gaff: «
Paleoclimate data permit evaluation of long -
term sensitivity to specified GHG change.
Alternatively, more direct observations of that radiative imbalance would be nice, or better theoretical and observational understanding of the water vapor and cloud feedbacks, or more
paleoclimate data which can give us constraints on historical feedbacks, but my guess is that ocean heat content measurements would be the best near
term bet for improving our understanding of this issue.
The actual prevailing view of the
paleoclimate research community that emerged during the early 1990s, when long -
term proxy
data became more widely available and it was possible to synthesize them into estimates of large - scale temperature changes in past centuries, was that the average temperature over the Northern Hemisphere varied by significantly less than 1 degree C in previous centuries (i.e., the variations in past centuries were small compared to the observed 20th century warming).
Verdon and Franks (2006)-- for instance — used «proxy climate records derived from
paleoclimate data to investigate the long -
term behaviour of the PDO and ENSO.
We can obtain this «long -
term» climate sensitivity from
paleoclimate data by finding the scale factor that causes the GHG forcing to match the
paleoclimate temperature change as accurately as possible.
Second, because the geologic record has both temporal and geographic limitations in
terms of coverage, more accurate climate models could provide
paleoclimate interpretations where sedimentological
data are limited (i.e., in frontier exploration areas).