Sentences with phrase «variability on time scales»

Finds that, in the Atlantic, variability on time scales of a few years and more is strongly correlated with tropical Atlantic sea surface temperature, while in the western North Pacific, this correlation, while still present, is considerably weaker

The hockey stick and its more recent incarnations have acted to diminish the importance of unforced climate variability on these time scales.

We also know from isotopic archives of solar activity that the Sun exhibits greater variability on time scales that exceed the eleven - year cycle.

I am particularly interested in the role of the oceans in climate variability on time scales of years to decades.

But we know that the mechanisms responsible for the variation of Ts are different in internal variability on these time scales and in forced climate change, then my questions is that: is it possible that the spread in ECS might not be so directly caused by low - cloud feedback, although the low cloud feedback is a very good indictor for the model uncertainty?

The motions of the massive oceans where heat is moved between deep layers and the surface provides variability on time scales from years to centuries.

The North Atlantic Ocean is one of the most important drivers for the global ocean circulation and its variability on time scales beyond inter-annual.

The interactions between the subsystems thus giverise to climate variability on all time scales.»

rw (05:22:03): «The motions of the massive oceans where heat is moved between deep layers and the surface provides variability on time scales from years to centuries.

We explicitly agree (final paragraph of main article) that the climate has historically shown significant variability on all time scales.

The interactions between the subsystems thus give rise to climate variability on all time scales.»

Not exact matches

A study led by scientists at the GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel shows that the ocean currents influence the heat exchange between ocean and atmosphere and thus can explain climate variability on decadal time scales.

In 1964, the Norwegian climate researcher Jacob Bjerknes postulated different causes of climate variability on different time scales.

On this latter scale teleconnections manifest as a response of middle - latitude weather to the dominant modes of variability of the tropics (the Madden - Julian Oscillation and the Boreal Summer Intra-seasonal Oscillations, which similar to El Niño and La Niña characterize variations of climate but on shorter time scalesOn this latter scale teleconnections manifest as a response of middle - latitude weather to the dominant modes of variability of the tropics (the Madden - Julian Oscillation and the Boreal Summer Intra-seasonal Oscillations, which similar to El Niño and La Niña characterize variations of climate but on shorter time scaleson shorter time scales).

Bamzai, A.S., 2003: Relationship between snow cover variability and Arctic Oscillation Index on a hierarchy of time scales.

The dominant mode of global - scale variability on interannual time scales is ENSO, although there have been times when it is less apparent.

On decadal time scales, annual streamflow variation and precipitation are driven by large - scale patterns of climate variability, such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (see teleconnections description in Climate chapter)(Pederson et al. 2011a; Seager and Hoerling 2014).

The data is on atmospheric absorption during occultations, indicating short time scale variability.

The SAM contributes a significant proportion of SH mid-latitude circulation variability on many time scales (Hartmann and Lo, 1998; Kidson, 1999; Thompson and Wallace, 2000; Baldwin, 2001).

At this time the E-W sea surface temperature gradients in both the Pacific and Indian Oceans increased [29], [31] intensifying the E-W moisture transport in the tropics, which greatly increased rainfall variability both on a precession and an ENSO (El Niño Southern Oscillation) time - scales.

However, we must (1) compare the solar forcing with the net of other forcings, which enhances the importance of solar change, because the net forcing is smaller than the GHG forcing, and (2) consider forcing changes on longer time scales, which greatly diminishes the importance of solar change, because solar variability is mainly oscillatory.

The short - term variability of my account balance also has completely different reasons (e.g. purchase of a new stereo or a tax rebate) than the longer - term evolution (ruled by small but persistent changes in regular items like salary, housing cost...) so when you're looking for a linkage, you must first assess on what time scale you need to be looking.

For variability on a long time scale, the effect is generally constant over a short time period (such as Milankovitch cycles).

For instance, an influential analysis by Hawking & Sutton (2009)(link to figures) has suggested that internal climate variability account for only about 20 % of the variance over the British isles on a 50 - year time scale.

They have not analyzed the first year of data yet, but in my lab we have looked at results from a similar set of moorings at 15N (Uwe Send's work) and find rather significant variability on weekly to monthly time scales (but no trend over the 4 years of data).

Patterns of variability that don't match the predicted fingerprints from the examined drivers (the «residuals») can be large — especially on short - time scales, and look in most cases like the modes of internal variability that we've been used to; ENSO / PDO, the North Atlantic multidecadal oscillation etc..

Most of the surface temperature variability is on the diurnal (day - night) time scale.

One can see a number of basic flaws here; the complete lack of appreciation of the importance of natural variability on short time scales, the common but erroneous belief that any attribution of past climate change to solar or other forcing means that CO2 has no radiative effect, and a hopeless lack of familiarity of the basic science of detection and attribution.

Even if it were real physical variability, at that short time scale I would not expect it to be linked to global temperature in the way that I expect this link on longer time scales.

She goes so far as to say (in her post responding to Gavin's post, but responding to something else) «I do regard the emerging realization of the importance of natural variability to be an existential threat to the mainstream theory of climate variations on decadal to century time scales.»

It is these uppermost few percent of events that are important, and models and theory are nearly unanimous now that they are and will continue to increase, notwithstanding natural climate variability on shorter time scales (as much as 20 years).»

AR5 section 9.5.3 concludes «Nevertheless, the lines of evidence above suggest with high confidence that models reproduce global and NH temperature variability on a wide range of time scales.»

Nature (with hopefully some constructive input from humans) will decide the global warming question based upon climate sensitivity, net radiative forcing, and oceanic storage of heat, not on the type of multi-decadal time scale variability we are discussing here.

That means that the potential for natural variability to be more dominant on shorter time scales is high — and indeed, Connolley and Bracegirdle show a lot of variance in the model output on those time scales.

But «natural» variability is made up of two components — internal variations and natural forcings (solar and volcanoes on this time scale).

(1) The «fast response» component of the climate system, consisting of the atmosphere coupled to a mixed layer upper ocean, has very little natural variability on the decadal and longer time scale.

However, in the paper the authors actually stated that «our conclusion about the dominance of the CRF over climate variability is valid only on multimillion - year time scales».

(57k) When I state that the equilibrium climatic response must balance imposed RF (and feedbacks that occur), I am referring to a global time average RF and global time average response (in terms of radiative and convective fluxes), on a time scale sufficient to characterize the climatic state (including cycles driven by externally - forced cycles (diurnal, annual) and internal variability.

On the very small scale, one could have a runaway between whether or not a weather pattern has a thunderstorm at a specific time and place or whether it is dry and sunny at that specific time and place — but that's not the same as a change in climate (see internal variability, chaos, butterfly effect).

Even then any discrepancy might be due to internal variability (related principally to the ocean on multi-decadal time scales).

Obviously though on any short time scale of a few years, there is significant local variability as would be expected from a dynamic ocean environment.

But there remains far too much natural variability in the frequency and potency of rare and powerful storms — on time scales from decades to centuries — to go beyond pointing to this event being consistent with what's projected on a human - heated planet.

While rereading the ocean heat content changes by Levitus 2005 at http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/PDF/PAPERS/grlheat05.pdf a remarkable sentence was noticed: «However, the large decrease in ocean heat content starting around 1980 suggests that internal variability of the Earth system significantly affects Earth's heat balance on decadal time - scales.»

The strongest internal variability in the climate system on this time scale is the change from El Niño to La Niña — a natural, stochastic «seesaw» in the tropical Pacific called ENSO (El Niño Southern Oscillation).

I did a simple calculation on a time scale of several centuries, and only the Sun has such long range variability.

«One can see a number of basic flaws here; the complete lack of appreciation of the importance of natural variability on short time scales...»

If you are of the opinion that temperature variability on a short time scale is insignificant, how can we declare as fact that the rise in global temperature over the past 50 years is incontrovertibly tied to the increase in CO2 levels?

[Dr. Carling has] the complete lack of appreciation of the importance of natural variability on short time scales, the -LSB-...] erroneous belief that any attribution of past climate change to -LSB-...] other [than CO2] forcing means that CO2 has no radiative effect, and a hopeless lack of familiarity of the basic science of detection and attribution.

Standard error involves both natural variability (including that not well understood because it operates on long time scales, and therefore has not been observed during the period of modern technology) as well as measurement error (or error / uncertainty in the proxies).

The stagnation in greenhouse warming observed over the past 15 + years demonstrates that CO2 is not a control knob that can fine tune climate variability on decadal and multi-decadal time scales.