Sentences with phrase «volcanic forcing when»

The sensitivity, shown in Supplementary Table 6, of TCR estimation using the difference method to choice of base period when using a 2000 — 09 final period is explicable primarily by poor matching of volcanic forcing when base periods other than 1861 — 80 are used.

Not exact matches

Arif, who is also the chairman of INACA, further explained that this achievement came when the airline industry is facing huge challenges, from a sluggish economy to a number of «force majeures» or natural disasters, such as volcanic eruptions and haze.

When a group of people claiming superior scientific knowledge and understanding refuses to grasp the extremely simple point I've been making regarding the heating capacity of an absence of volcanic eruptions, then I am forced to take all their other arguments with a huge grain of salt.

Combining solar and volcanic forcings is a red herring, when the question is what proportion increases in solar activity and forcing is responsible for the 20th century warming and particularly the recent warming vis» a» vis anthropogenic GHGs.

Volcanic impact is «small» when the forcing is «global» only because a portion of the short term impact is «averaged» out.

«Since 1997, when Pinatubo's aerosol settled out, the stratosphere has been exceptionally clear... Half or more of the warming since 1995 may due to the lack of large volcanic eruptions... That's about 0.13 °C... The remaining climate change is presumably caused by other forces, such as solar variability, El Nino, Atlantic AMO warming in 1995, lower Albedo and maybe even a little greenhouse gas.»

The forced run, which includes the solar, volcanic, and greenhouse gas forcing, captures the major modes of precipitation climatology comparably well when contrasted with those captured by the NCEP reanalysis.

I am surprised when you say that volcanic forcing dominates the models - this seems at odds to papers by Lean and Rind etc..»

Modelling studies are also in moderately good agreement with observations during the first half of the 20th century when both anthropogenic and natural forcings are considered, although assessments of which forcings are important differ, with some studies finding that solar forcing is more important (Meehl et al., 2004) while other studies find that volcanic forcing (Broccoli et al., 2003) or internal variability (Delworth and Knutson, 2000) could be more important.

One approach is to estimate global temperature as a simple function of climate forcing and ENSO through a regression approach; perhaps the best - known example is Foster & Rahmstorf (2011), which found that when the impact of natural factors (volcanic eruptions, solar variations, and ENSO) is removed, the trend in global temperature has been remarkably steady since 1979 (when satellite observations of atmospheric temperature begin).

The most likely candidate for that climatic variable force that comes to mind is solar variability (because I can think of no other force that can change or reverse in a different trend often enough, and quick enough to account for the historical climatic record) and the primary and secondary effects associated with this solar variability which I feel are a significant player in glacial / inter-glacial cycles, counter climatic trends when taken into consideration with these factors which are, land / ocean arrangements, mean land elevation, mean magnetic field strength of the earth (magnetic excursions), the mean state of the climate (average global temperature), the initial state of the earth's climate (how close to interglacial - glacial threshold condition it is) the state of random terrestrial (violent volcanic eruption, or a random atmospheric circulation / oceanic pattern that feeds upon itself possibly) / extra terrestrial events (super-nova in vicinity of earth or a random impact) along with Milankovitch Cycles.

You have in common with them that the main contributors to the energy balance are ignored completely, and that you give no rationale why the 2 W / m2 from the CO2 increase can be just ignored when much smaller solar forcing variations contributed to things like the Maunder Minimum, and short volcanic variations of this magnitude are seen in the climate record.

Re ENSO, there is a significant (p = 0.016) negative relationship between AR5 volcanic forcing and the MEI - extended index (extended forward to 2011) when regressing annually over 1871 - 2011, but the R2 is only 0.04 so it doesn't explain much ENSO variability.

«Modelling studies are also in moderately good agreement with observations during the first half of the 20th century when both anthropogenic and natural forcings are considered, although assessments of which forcings are important differ, with some studies finding that solar forcing is more important (Meehl et al., 2004) while other studies find that volcanic forcing (Broccoli et al., 2003) or internal variability (Delworth and Knutson, 2000) could be more important... The mid-century cooling that the model simulates in some regions is also observed, and is caused in the model by regional negative surface forcing from organic and black carbon associated with biomass burning.

First, you note that a factor needs to be applied to the volcanic response when you predict temperature from the forcing inputs: - «When I lag the forcings, using an efficacy of 1 for all forcings except volcanic and a volcanic efficacy of 0.75, I get an R ^ 2 of 0.98 when compared to the GISS model output.&rawhen you predict temperature from the forcing inputs: - «When I lag the forcings, using an efficacy of 1 for all forcings except volcanic and a volcanic efficacy of 0.75, I get an R ^ 2 of 0.98 when compared to the GISS model output.&raWhen I lag the forcings, using an efficacy of 1 for all forcings except volcanic and a volcanic efficacy of 0.75, I get an R ^ 2 of 0.98 when compared to the GISS model output.&rawhen compared to the GISS model output.»

When I lag the forcings, using an efficacy of 1 for all forcings except volcanic and a volcanic efficacy of 0.75, I get an R ^ 2 of 0.98 when compared to the GISS model outWhen I lag the forcings, using an efficacy of 1 for all forcings except volcanic and a volcanic efficacy of 0.75, I get an R ^ 2 of 0.98 when compared to the GISS model outwhen compared to the GISS model output.

It is well known that volcanic forcing appears to have an efficacy materially below one, at least when used in simple climate models: see the discussion in Lewis and Curry 2014.

What about significant travel delays such as those experienced by travelers last year when the volcanic ash cloud halted air travel and forced travelers to extend their stays and / or try for alternative travel?