Sentences with phrase «large warm bias»

Thus there is expected to be a very large warm bias in the earlier measurements.

Large warm bias can hinder models» fidelity of climate simulations and their future projections.

This is plagued by subjective, manual adjustments that in many cases can not be justified, sites with years of missing data, sites that should not have been used because of Urban contamination, and a large warming bias.

I found it to be in the model ball park (perhaps a bit larger, actually) which implied a large warming bias in the surface data, a large cooling bias in the satellite data, some less large combination of those two, or an unknown real climactic effect on lapse rate variation that only operates on the long term and is absent from current models:

Not exact matches

Scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory within the Atmospheric, Earth, and Energy Division, along with collaborators from the U.K. Met Office and other modeling centers around the world, organized an international multi-model intercomparison project, name CAUSES (Clouds Above the United States and Errors at the Surface), to identify possible causes for the large warm surface air temperature bias seen in many weather forecast and climate model simulations.

[1] CO2 absorbs IR, is the main GHG, human emissions are increasing its concentration in the atmosphere, raising temperatures globally; the second GHG, water vapor, exists in equilibrium with water / ice, would precipitate out if not for the CO2, so acts as a feedback; since the oceans cover so much of the planet, water is a large positive feedback; melting snow and ice as the atmosphere warms decreases albedo, another positive feedback, biased toward the poles, which gives larger polar warming than the global average; decreasing the temperature gradient from the equator to the poles is reducing the driving forces for the jetstream; the jetstream's meanders are increasing in amplitude and slowing, just like the lower Missippi River where its driving gradient decreases; the larger slower meanders increase the amplitude and duration of blocking highs, increasing drought and extreme temperatures — and 30,000 + Europeans and 5,000 plus Russians die, and the US corn crop, Russian wheat crop, and Aussie wildland fire protection fails — or extreme rainfall floods the US, France, Pakistan, Thailand (driving up prices for disk drives — hows that for unexpected adverse impacts from AGW?)

Somehow all the station changes show a large bias towards moving from warmer to colder locations thus requiring either an upward adjustment to data prior to the move or downward adjustment to data before the move.

I think this PDO cycle is a large part of the warm bias.

As estimated from this study, we found a conservative estimate of a warm bias resulting from measuring the temperature near the ground at just one level of around 0.21 °C per decade (with the nighttime minimum temperature contributing a large part of this bias).

The bias is larger (∼ 4 K) in regions where the primar y source of data is buoys, which contain warm biases in winter owing to the insulation effect of snow covering the sensors.

He manages to publish articles by every biased organisation under the sun from global warming sceptics, real science poo pooers, ideological nutcases, one eyed fossil fuel lobbyists, sycophants of large business politicos, and the would be destroyers of public services and regulation.

Note in Watts Figure 16, by far the largest adjustments (in the warming direction) are for rural stations, which is to be expected if TOB is introducing a cool bias at those stations, as Karl discusses.

Well, this is the same Federal government that can not spare a dime (or more than 0.25 FTE) for bringing up its temperature measurement sites (whose output help drive this whole bill) to its own standards, allowing errors and biases in the measurements 2 - 3 times larger than the historic warming signal we are trying to measure.

So I'm prompted to wonder... Since 1970, fewer, larger ships reporting SST from fixed (intake / hull) sensors — could this intruduce a warming bias in the recent observed SST data?

One of the largest findings of the surfacestation.org project was that changing the paint type and general weathering of shelters, cotton screen and the bee hives, produces a warming bias.

If I remember the context of the original correctly, I was pointing out that the warming bias of excess airports was being placed in larger part in what ought to have been the colder places.

Having worked with many of the scientists in question, I can say with certainty that there is no grand conspiracy to artificially warm the earth; rather, scientists are doing their best to interpret large datasets with numerous biases such as station moves, instrument changes, time of observation changes, urban heat island biases, and other so - called inhomogenities that have occurred over the last 150 years.

Since there is a warm bias, the critters like to survive, the averaging of a large number of proxies just produces nonsense if not properly modeled.

Compared to those problems (bias and random variation), here is a large unknown: a 2 % increase in cloud cover would prevent the warming effect of increased CO2; will a 7 % increase in water vapor pressure, or 12 % increase in lightning ground strike rate, or a 2 % — 7 % increase in rainfall rate be accompanied by a 2 % increase in cloud cover?

While the impact of adjustments that correct for these biases are relatively small globally (and actually reduce the century - scale warming trend once oceans are included) there are certain regions where the impact of adjustments on temperature trends are large.

In comparing the observed temperature changes to the model simulations, they suggest that the recent surface warming slowdown is due to a large natural flucuation, and / or that some source of bias in climate models is making it difficult for them to simulate it.

The magnitude and inter-model range of simulated warming over high northern latitudes are very similar in the high - end and non-high-end models, which indicates that the biases among the models are larger than the climate change signal.

From your link: «Using satellite altimetry observations and a large suite of climate models, we conclude that observed estimates of 0 — 700 dbar global ocean warming since 1970 are likely biased low.»

So you have a Theory, CO2 and equivalent «greenhouse» gases will have a warming impact on climate that allows for approximately 0.8 to 1.2 C of warming and biases guestimates that it could be umpteen times larger.

Furthermore, it is something that has more recently been quantified, so it can't really be held against him, but the surface temperature data have a cool bias by ignoring large parts of the (rapidly warming) Arctic (see also http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/01/global-temperature-2013/).