Sentences with phrase «ipcc modelers»

Yes, and the following point is important: The assumptions made by Christy and McNider 2017 (and MacRae 2018) are essentially the SAME (mostly false) assumptions as those of the IPCC modelers: 1.

Call a spade a spade — Require all IPCC modelers and politicians use «global warming» when calling for reductions in CO2.

It is about time that the discussion moved on from the useless speculations of the IPCC modelers to forecasts of the timing and extent of the coming cooling based the idea of identifying quasi - repetitive, quasi cyclic patterns in the temperature and driver data provided in a series of my posts at http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com Here are the conclusions of the most recent post.

It is about time that the discussion moved on from the useless speculations of the IPCC modelers to forecasts of the timing and extent of the coming cooling based the idea of identifying quasi - repetitive, quasi cyclic patterns in the temperature and driver data

Fossil fuel consumption rates will slowly diminish over the coming decades as fossil fuels are gradually depleted, and the resultant atmospheric and oceanic CO2 is predicted by IPCC modelers to END glaciation cycles and thus, to open much of Canada and Siberia to greatly improved agriculture and forestry.

Just one more example, although there are many more, is sufficient to illustrate how the IPCC modelers know their models don't work, but also why they can't work.

Not exact matches

The modelers and IPCC's use of these models as anomalies underscores a basic problem with the ensemble, the absolute temperature values which impact TOA.

Because for the IPCC and the modelers it's not good news.

It seems to me that the «modelers» or the AGW crowd has to admit soon that the 2.0 - 4.0 K / CO2 doubling is way overestimated in the IPCC AR4 and come up with more moderate assumptions.

If modelers really are waiting for the IPCC to provide leadership in either illuminating or fixing one of the most serious problems with their work, then I think I just lost my last shred of respect for these fools.

The IPCC's climate modelers purposefully designed the computer models to implicate human CO2 emissions as the major culprit for global warming and climate change.

The World Bank and the child of the UNFCCC, that is IPCC are similar: their modelers have fallen in love with their creations.

Just two weeks ago, a top IPCC climate modeler dropped a bombshell and told the world that global warming is

Unfortunately for the IPCC and its climate modelers, these simulated climate predictions were wrong.

Which explains why climate modeler Andrew Weaver thinks it's perfectly OK to be a candidate for the Green Party of British Columbia (one of Canada's provinces) at the same time that he's serving as a lead author for the IPCC.

These quack science models are further skewed by the modelers» doctrinaire anti-carbon passions, the vetting of their results by the corrupt bureaucracy of the U.N.'s IPCC and the dependence of their salaries on the expectations of funding agencies.

Small wonder, then, that the modelers» computer «reconstructions» of the planet's past climate conveniently wiped out the well - documented three - centuries - long Medieval Warming Period, as well as the subsequent 500 years of Little Ice Age — nor is it surprising that their terrifying computer prognostications in the IPCC's 2001 Third Assessment failed to predict the next decade's absence of any global warming trend at all.

The IPCC — Andrew Weaver, who is like the best climate modeler in Canada or one of the best, said you know, meter, two meters at the outside is all that he can show in models in this century.

The person then in charge of the relevant Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) chapter was Kevin Trenberth — who is described in a recent interview as a «climate modeler and IPCC insider.»

In 2012, PhD meteorologist Dr Roy Spencer detailed the problems that Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) climate models, and thus climate modeler experts, were facing concerning Daubert Standard acceptability.

In accordance with a decision of the IPCC Bureau in 1998 to release draft scenarios to climate modelers for their input in the Third Assessment Report, and subsequently to solicit comments during the open process, one marker scenario was chosen from each of four of the scenario groups based on the storylines.

Inasmuch as essentially all of the IPCC claims of AGW attribution, the projections of future climate changes and the resulting recommendations to policymakers are based on GCM simulations, this is a fairly damning conclusion that will not make many modelers (and certainly not IPCC) happy.

3 brave researchers finally figure out what has been obvious to mathematical modelers (who know to backtest models on past, known, data) since day one of the IPCC extravaganza - we could double atmospheric CO2 and the chance of the planet tipping into a 4.5 C temperature increase (current catastrophe scenario being peddled) would still remain under 1 %.

Furthermore if you add the knowledge that models have been «recentered» to fit exactly the average value of the 1900 - 1950 period, so that the agreement of the average is granted from the beginning, the overall quality of the fit is even more questionable — Note that if it is in the IPCC report, it is probably the best that modelers can produce.

This will still be a challenge for the global climate modelers to explain, since the IPCC perspective of global warming requires a more - or-less monotonic increase in Joules within the climate system, in the absence of a major volcanic eruption (i.e. see A Litmus Test For Global Warming - A Much Overdue Requirement).

Note: During the approval process of the Summary for Policymakers at the 5th Session of WGIII of the IPCC from 8 - 11 March 2000 in Katmandu, Nepal, it was decided to combine the A1C and A1G groups into one «fossil intensive» group A1FI in contrast to the non-fossil group A1T, and to select two illustrative scenarios from these two A1 groups to facilitate use by modelers and policy makers.

However, it is instructive to note that a simple model of a linear trend plus sine wave matches history so well, particularly since it assumes such a small contribution from CO2 (yet matches history well) and since in prior IPCC reports, the IPCC and most modelers simply refused to include cyclic functions like AMO and PDO in their models.

To successfully develop geoengineering technologies is going to require the efforts of people from a wide range of backgrounds, just like the IPCC reports that aren't all prepared by climate modelers.

One should note that while the IPCC asked modelers to look at a series of different cases, the only substantial difference between these cases is the volume of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses produced.

The IPCC and climate modelers don't claim otherwise.

Note, however, that even the IPCC admits that it and all of its modelers really do not understand (even a little bit) the effect of global warming on rainfall and drought.