Sentences with phrase «year variability at»

Variables explaining a significant component of yield variance are nitrogen, irrigation water, and precipitation; temperature was a less significant component of yield variation within the range of observed year - to - year variability at the study sites.

Not exact matches

I mean what we've learned over the last several years is that there's tremendous variability across the year, and so you had really strong sales results at Red Lobster first quarter last year, weak earnings results because of the variability in food costs.

Crude oil prices have been more volatile this year than at any time since the financial crisis of 2008/09 and before that 1991, according to standard measures of price variability.

By comparison, phenacosaur anoles living in cloud forests have had very little exposure to temperature variability for over 10 million years and are very much at risk from climate change, he said.

«For years, we've been using ice cores to look at the natural variability in the system,» says Thompson.

«We've known for 30 years that the cheetah has a low variability at some immune genes, but they thrive in a pathogen - laden environment.»

The annual variability and trends in loggerhead nesting numbers in Florida are associated with long - term survival at sea from hatchling to maturity, combined with climate - driven changes in mature female foraging areas within a year or two before nesting.»

Some show far more variability leading up to the 20th century than the hockey stick, but none suggest that it has been warmer at any time in the past 1000 years than in the last part of the 20th century.

«There's a lot of year - to - year variability in both Arctic and Antarctic sea ice, but overall, until last year, the trends in the Antarctic for every single month were toward more sea ice,» said Claire Parkinson, a senior sea ice researcher at Goddard.

«The swing to a very cold year is natural variability, and what we want to be able to uncover and understand is the magnitude of the slow and steady trend occurring at the same time as these large swings.»

Both of El Niño's counterparts will be looked at more closely in a 15 - year programme studying climate variability known as CLIVAR, which is the follow - up to TOGA.

Scientists see a large amount of variability in the El Niño - Southern Oscillation (ENSO) when looking back at climate records from thousands of years ago.

«Based on the satellite data gathered, we can identify areas that, over the past 14 years, have shown high sensitivity to climate variability,» says researcher Alistair Seddon at the Department of Biology at the University of Bergen (UiB).

In the past 15 years, the oceans have warmed, the amount of snow and ice has diminished and sea levels have risen, explains Lisa Goddard, an expert in climate variability at Columbia University.

«The study reinforces the idea that looking at Arctic and Antarctic ice separately is the best way to understand decadal and long - term trends, because it suggests significant decadal and inter-decadal variability in southern hemisphere ice extent going back much further than the last 30 years.»

«When we look at year - to - year natural variability, El Niño / La Niña is the elephant in the room.

As the first mission to provide extensive time series measurements on thousands of stars over months to years at a level hitherto possible only for the Sun, the results from Kepler will vastly increase our knowledge of stellar variability for quiet solar - type stars.

Moreover, any internal variability in the system will be superimposed on this even stronger growing positive trend, shifting the base climate into a state not seen for at least a few million years.

Natural variability is primarily controlled by exchange of heat between the ocean and the atmosphere, but it is an extremely complex process and if we want to develop better near - term predictive skills — which is looking not at what's going to happen in the next three months but what's going to happen between the next year and 10 years or 20 years or so — if we want to expand our understanding there, we have to understand natural variability better than we do today.

Despite large year - to - year variability of temperature, decadal averages reveal isotherms (lines of a given average temperature) moving poleward at a typical rate of the order of 100 km / decade in the past three decades [101], although the range shifts for specific species follow more complex patterns [102].

Marcott states that his reconstruction preserves variability for periods longer than 2000 years, only 50 % at 1000 - year periods, and no variability less than 300 years.

Also for Florrie — here's the paper that found «17 years» needed — looking at several different data sets, figuring out how variable they are and so how many years you need to look at to drop out the natural variability, and see if there's a trend over time.

With only 30 + year time series of sea ice extent or volume, this is something difficult to do so we have to strive to construct longer time series that allow an assessment of natural variability at those times scales.

Thus, given natural variability, 20 years is only enough time to start tell apart (in a statistical significant fashion) trends that are at least disparate by about 0.15 ºC / decade.

By looking at the signatures of climate change in precipitation intensity and comparing that to the internal variability and the observation, the researchers conclude that the probability of intense precipitation on any given day has increased by 7 percent over the last 50 years — well outside the bounds of natural variability.

What would be interesting to look at, rather than mean annual temperatures is the variability of temperature and precipitation patterns throughout the year.

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).

The 960 year carrier wave variability can then be modulated — i.e shorter term forecasts can be then made by looking at and projecting forwards on top of the carrier wave the shorter term multidecadal periodicities in the PDO AMO etc..

I don't think anyone denies that the sun matters for climate, but the question is whether the variability of the sun in recent history has had the impact that we project from greenhouse gases over the next 100 — and there, I think, a majority of your «AGW» ers» would think the evidence suggests that changes in human forcing will likely be several times (at least) larger than any solar variability we've seen in a thousand years or more.

The low r2 values are associated with year to year variability which is not really what is being looked for, rather you want a statistic that works at capturing the general level.

Here is the detrended AMO index which has much longer cycles of 25 years or so but shows much less overall variability than the ENSO has (+ / -0.6 C versus the ENSO at + / - 3.0 C).

During the Holocene optimum at a time when Wolcott shows less than 0.2 C of variability, Rosenthal shows an upset in NH IWT that has the temperature rising 2C in about 500 years.

So at 1450 say, you can't trust the year - to - year variability, but the longer term average is more skillful.

The basic point is that when you get to the relatively sparse networks further back, the reconstructions don't have fidelity at the year - to - year variability.

(on the external forcing at another occasion) This summer / winter dichotomy in the N. Hemisphere's temperature variability is clearly shown in the CET's 350 year long instrumental record.

The problem with your statement is that 1) 1998 was a rather large outlier caused by the strongest El Nino on record, meaning the underlying trend continued unperturbed right past 1998 until ~ 2002 in that graph (the Mark I eyeball at work again), and 2) 2002 to present (and even 1998 to present) does not constitute the long term trend as 12 (or 17) years is far short of the ~ 30 * years needed to detect the underlying trend from the year to year noise of natural variability.

We showed that no temperature variability is preserved in our reconstruction at cycles shorter than 300 years, 50 % is preserved at 1000 - year time scales, and nearly all is preserved at 2000 - year periods and longer.

Marika Holland at NCAR warned that the same variability that caused the remarkable dip in 2007 (and less remarkable one this year) could just as easily throw a wrinkle in the other direction.

What are considered to be the dominant physical processes responsible for the recent (15 to 20 years) variability of the ice at the Arctic circle?

The IPCC has therefore never tried to predict the climate evolution over 15 years, because that's just too much influenced by random internal variability (such as ENSO), which we can not predict (at least as yet).

The argument is that there is enough climate variability at regional scales that even in a very cold post-volcano year, not all regions will be substantially cooler than usual.

Even in the unlikely event that all trees at a site may be missing a ring for a particular year, other sites are almost always sampled downslope or away from the high latitude tree - line at sites (as part of a wider network) that will not be quite as sensitive to temperature variability (i.e. growth will be less limited by temperature).

We still don't expect each year to be warmer than the last due to the intrinsic variability («weather») in global mean temperature (around 0.1 to 0.2 °C), but at the current rate of global warming (~ 0.17 °C / decade), new records can be expected relatively frequently.

I don't think the last 12 years in isolation could provide much evidence to confirm or falsify models (which do produce internal variability, hence the wide spread in short term trends), but taking those 12 years in comparison to the 12 before, and the last 24 years in comparison to the 24 before that, etc, and paleoclimatic evidence, etc, and model behavior is at least generally supported.

As presented below, the temperature record of each of these groups (available at the URLs given at the bottom of this message) shows the same features: (i) a warming of about 0.9 °C (1.6 °F) over the past 150 years and (ii) natural variability with both short and long periods.

[Response: Scoresby was referring to the single anomalous years — mainly in the Archipelago, where interannual variability is (or at least used to be) very large.

No one looks seriously at a few years of warming or cooling as indicative of anything except the wonderfully rich variability in climate.

The models and observations both also indicate that the amplitude of interannual variability about these longer - term trends is quite large, making it foolhardy, at best, to try to estimate the slope of anthropogenic warming from a few years of data (as you seem to advocate).

Based on results from large ensemble simulations with the Community Earth System Model, we show that internal variability alone leads to a prediction uncertainty of about two decades, while scenario uncertainty between the strong (Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5) and medium (RCP4.5) forcing scenarios [possible paths for greenhouse gas emissions] adds at least another 5 years.

A statistical model (based on the work of Judith Lean at the Naval Research Laboratory) that accounts for solar variability, El Niño, volcanic activity, and greenhouse warming indicates that the underlying trend of global warming has accelerated over the past 15 years.