Sentences with phrase «ipcc computer model projections»

Average of the IPCC computer model projections for the tropical mid-troposphere versus three standard sets of observations: weather balloons, temperature sensed from satellites, and «reanalysis» data used to initialize the daily weather map.

Not exact matches

I say astoundingly because the IPCC projections were based on computer models that were fed by erroneous data supplied by these «scientists».

Nor is the fact that the IPCC's political arguments rely significantly upon climate projections from computer models that, unless prompted with corrections, contradict reality.

Comment (2 - 13): The Southeastern Legal Foundation provides the following reaction to the African rain - fed agriculture projection, which appeared in the Sunday Times (Leake, 2010a) and comes from former IPCC chair Robert Watson: «Any such projection [pertaining to African crop yields] should be based on peer - reviewed literature from computer modeling of how agricultural yields would respond to climate change.

Projected warming and climate change due to CO2 only occurs in predetermined Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) computer models that exclude major mechanisms and whose projections are consistently wrong.

Results from an irreducibly simple climate model,» concluded that, once discrepancies in IPCC computer models are taken into account, the impact of CO2 - driven manmade global warming over the next century (and beyond) is likely to be «no more than one - third to one - half of the IPCC's current projections» — that is, just 1 - 2 degrees C (2 - 4 deg F) by 2100!

The IPCC AR5 provides a spaghetti graph of 95 computer model projections.

First, this claim is based on the usual IPCC mainstay of generating computer projections using woefully inadequate modelling, starting with dubious initial conditions.

Prashant Goswami, chief scientist at Bangalore's CSIR Centre for Mathematical Modeling and Computer Simulation and one of the lead authors of the IPCC report, admitted that these conclusions were based on climatic projections that were not as firm as those made at a global level.

IPCC computer models still assume a CO2 increase will cause a temperature increase so it is not surprising their projections are incorrect.

Thus, it is perfectly legitimate in science to check whether the computer GCMs adopted by the IPCC fulfill the required scientific tests, that is whether these models reconstruct sufficiently well the 20th century global surface temperature and, consequently, whether these models can be truly trusted in their 21st century projections.

Such solecisms throughout the IPCC's assessment reports (including the insertion, after the scientists had completed their final draft, of a table in which four decimal points had been right - shifted so as to multiply tenfold the observed contribution of ice - sheets and glaciers to sea - level rise), combined with a heavy reliance upon computer models unskilled even in short - term projection, with initial values of key variables unmeasurable and unknown, with advancement of multiple, untestable, non-Popper-falsifiable theories, with a quantitative assignment of unduly high statistical confidence levels to non-quantitative statements that are ineluctably subject to very large uncertainties, and, above all, with the now - prolonged failure of TS to rise as predicted (Figures 1, 2), raise questions about the reliability and hence policy - relevance of the IPCC's central projections.

The scientific paper, entitled «Why Models Run Hot,» concludes that the computer models overstated the impact of CO2 on the climate: «The impact of anthropogenic global warming over the next century... may be no more than one - third to one - half of IPCC's current projections.&Models Run Hot,» concludes that the computer models overstated the impact of CO2 on the climate: «The impact of anthropogenic global warming over the next century... may be no more than one - third to one - half of IPCC's current projections.&models overstated the impact of CO2 on the climate: «The impact of anthropogenic global warming over the next century... may be no more than one - third to one - half of IPCC's current projections.»

The lack of warming for more than a decade — indeed, the smaller - than - predicted warming over the 22 years since the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections — suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause.

Asked by CNSNews about the Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Easterbrook said they «ignored all the data I gave them... every time I say something about the projection of climate into the future based on real data, they come out with some [computer] modeled data that says this is just a temporary pause... I am absolutely dumfounded by the totally absurd and stupid things said every day by people who are purportedly scientists that make no sense whatsoever....