[It is helps us to understand what natural forces are currently at work that could be causing changes... But note that some natural forces like the ones that I talked about above work over much longer timescales
than the century timescale over which we are making significant changes in greenhouse gas levels.
Significant methane release can occur when on - shore permafrost is thawed by a warmer atmosphere (unlikely to occur in significance on less
than a century timescale) and undersea clathrate at relatively shallow depths is melted by warming water.
Not exact matches
Methane (CH4) is an extremely potent greenhouse gas, 20 - 30 times more powerful
than carbon dioxide (CO2) on a
century timescale.
They also exhibit greater
century -
timescale variability
than is apparent in the other hemispheric series and suggest that the late 15th and the 16th
centuries were cooler
than indicated by some other data.
Under most scenarios of late 20th
century and future anthropogenic radiative forcing, a steady, rather
than accelerating, rise in global and hemispheric mean temperature is predicted over
timescales of decades.
Methane (CH4) is an extremely potent greenhouse gas, 20 — 30 times more powerful
than carbon dioxide (CO2) on a
century timescale.
The researches thus «urge extreme caution in attributing short - term trends (i.e. over many decades and longer) in US tropical cyclone losses to anthropogenic climate change,» stating that «anthropogenic climate change signals are unlikely to emerge in US tropical cyclone losses on
timescales of less
than a
century under the projections examined here.»
In terms of longer
timescales (decadal to
century), once the focus becomes regional rather
than global, historical and paleo data becomes more useful
than global climate model simulations (no matter what type of «right - scaling» methods are attempted).
But even if so, they make clear that they are using a different process designed more for the purpose
than the data you have picked up compiled for the volcano paper, and they allude to this directly: «So while these reconstructions have proved valuable for studying climate variability and the role of various forcing factors acting on relatively short
timescales, such as volcanic eruptions [Briffa et al 1998a], they are of limited use for judging the warmth of 20th
century warmth in a multicentury context.
It said that globally «the urbanisation influence... is, at most, an order of magnitude less
than the warming seen on a
century timescale».
I do not regard CO2 stabilization as a robust strategy or an effective one on
timescales less
than a
century
That's why folks who reckon upon
timescales greater
than one
century prefer to rely upon paleo - calibrated energy - balance models.
Conclusion The best available climate - change science plainly tells us that «We don't * WE DO * have to worry about the genuinely dangerous scenarios (e.g. ice sheet collapse, AMOC collapse) on
timescales of [more
than] a
century.»