Sentences with phrase «what stable climate»

Um, what stable climate are you talking about?

Not exact matches

The strong rise in the currency in the first six months of the year had been driven by investors chasing yields in the more stable economies, in what was a deteriorating climate for the world economy and share markets.

«It's an interesting lesson for us when it comes to climate change,» says Halverson, «because what we get is a thumbnail shift between two stable climatic states in Antarctica — from no glaciers to glaciers.

What sort of gargantuan forcing does he believe caused those changes in such a stable climate system?

[Response: Motl is so wrong on almost every conceivable point he tries to make regarding climate that my restraint is merely a reflection of my unwillingness to venture into his Augean stables for fear of what a herculean task it would be to try and set him straight.

The results for such a test on monthly absolute minimum / maximum temperatures in the Nordic countries and monthly mean temperatures worldwide are inconsistent with what we would see under a stable climate.

What we witness here are both climates and weather features changing before our eyes in the form of what to us may seem a freak event — but what is actually part of a dangerous transition period away from the stable climates of the HolocWhat we witness here are both climates and weather features changing before our eyes in the form of what to us may seem a freak event — but what is actually part of a dangerous transition period away from the stable climates of the Holocwhat to us may seem a freak event — but what is actually part of a dangerous transition period away from the stable climates of the Holocwhat is actually part of a dangerous transition period away from the stable climates of the Holocene.

Dismissing the stable climate question just shows what is wrong with climate research.

What's truly remarkable when you think about it is how all these self - regulating heat engines work together to produce such a remarkably stable climate that sometimes persists in more or less the same steady with no major perturbations for tens and hundreds of millions of years at a stretch.

If that CO2 release was in fact (partly) triggered by warming — a positive climate feedback — we need to know from what store it came and exactly how stable that spot looks today.

It's now well understood that what's needed to stop this unfolding apocalypse is an emergency transformation of the global economy — a WWII - scale mobilization to rapidly restore a stable climate and reverse ecological overshoot.

Which one is more likely: All basic thermodynamics and stat mech textbooks are wrong, including the ones that make showing that there is no lapse rate a homework problem or that do it in the actual text, or some people who have a really hard time understanding what a degree of freedom is or how to do an integral or mess with logarithmic expansions have made a mistake, the biggest of which is assuming that the DALR worked out in climate systems is stable in the absence of a driving thermal gradient and that air is locally truly «adiabatic», instead of just having a thermal conductivity that is slower than convection?

What if the climate is, unlike nearly every other long - term stable natural process, dominated by strong positive feedbacks?

To an Earth - system scientist the difference between the Quaternary period (which includes the Holocene) and the Neogene, which came before it, is not just what was living where, or what the sea level was; it is that in the Neogene the climate stayed stable whereas in the Quaternary it swung in and out of a series of ice ages.

The climate will eventually warm again — «stable» climate is an alarmist myth — and alarmist climate scientists will no doubt beat their doomsday drums even harder, while continuing to exaggerate the facts in what they tell the public to win support for the CAGW hypothesis.

We have to discover what has made the climate of the past 8,000 years relatively stable, and then figure out how to prop it up.

The danger in the current GW is not due to the difference between a stable climate at average 15oC (your current average temperature numbers are wrong) and a stable climate at average 20 or 22 or 25oC or what have you, it is due to the extremely rapid rate of change and the resulting instability and the loss of biodiversity.

Since to me (and many scientists, although some wanted a lot more corroborative evidence, which they've also gotten) it makes absolutely no sense to presume that the earth would just go about its merry way and keep the climate nice and relatively stable for us (though this rare actual climate scientist pseudo skeptic seems to think it would, based upon some non scientific belief — see second half of this piece), when the earth changes climate easily as it is, climate is ultimately an expression of energy, it is stabilized (right now) by the oceans and ice sheets, and increasing the number of long term thermal radiation / heat energy absorbing and re radiating molecules to levels not seen on earth in several million years would add an enormous influx of energy to the lower atmosphere earth system, which would mildly warm the air and increasingly transfer energy to the earth over time, which in turn would start to alter those stabilizing systems (and which, with increasing ocean energy retention and accelerating polar ice sheet melting at both ends of the globe, is exactly what we've been seeing) and start to reinforce the same process until a new stases would be reached well after the atmospheric levels of ghg has stabilized.

Audubon's climate model for this species predicts a significant shift in summer climate space by 2080 — only 21 % of the core area remains stable, and much of the shifting summer climate spaces moves northward into what is currently the boreal forest of Canada.

As President - elect Trump and his administration look to relieve the U.S. power sector from what he considers regulatory overreach and unleash America's energy potential, it is recommended that he do so with a view towards developing a comprehensive energy policy resilient enough to withstand subsequent political transitions and to provide the power sector with a stable, more predictable investment climate.

In view of what Leif Svalgaard says about the smallness of solar variations I'm coming round to the opinion that virtually all climate change that we observe is simply internal variability induced by the oceans and countered in the air all occurring around a relatively stable equilibrium set by sun and oceans.

Even a world dominated by climate - scientists - as - politicians would not have a «stable» or «balanced» climate, nor will that world be any better informed as to what a stable or balanced climate actually is.

What is relevant now is the rate of climate change, the specific causes, and its impact on modern civilisation that is dependent, for agricultural and societal security, a relatively stable climate.

What would push the climate away from being stable toward introducing a split?

Some recent coupled models have achieved a stable climate without the use of flux adjustments and an important question to ask is what is the effect of flux adjustment on changes in variability.