Sentences with phrase «because climate model projections»

I read a comment by a skeptic that because climate model projections are «averaged over time» (ie.

Not exact matches

«When we look forward several decades, climate models predict such profound loss of Arctic sea ice that there's little doubt this will negatively affect polar bears throughout much of their range, because of their critical dependence on sea ice,» said Kristin Laidre, a researcher at the University of Washington's Polar Science Center in Seattle and co-author of a study on projections of the global polar bear population.

No climate model has ever been properly tested, which is what «validation» means, and their «projections» are nothing more than the opinions of «experts» with a conflict of interest, because they are paid to produce the models.

At the time, he said «the stunning finding that forests can also feed on nitrogen in rocks has the potential to change all projections related to climate change,» because it meant there could be more carbon storage on land and less in the atmosphere than climate models say.

(in general, whether for future projections or historical reconstructions or estimates of climate sensitivity, I tend to be sympathetic to arguments of more rather than less uncertainty because I feel like in general, models and statistical approaches are not exhaustive and it is «plausible» that additional factors could lead to either higher or lower estimates than seen with a single approach.

Well, because soon (as soon as December 2005) the leading authors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (aka IPCC) Assessment Report # 4 (AR4) will have to decide what the current knowledge in climate state, modeling and climate projection estimates is, so as to include it in the next Climate Change (aka IPCC) Assessment Report # 4 (AR4) will have to decide what the current knowledge in climate state, modeling and climate projection estimates is, so as to include it in the next climate state, modeling and climate projection estimates is, so as to include it in the next climate projection estimates is, so as to include it in the next report.

And, the IPCC projection is probably too high because it was driven by a collection of climate models which new science indicates produce too much warming given a rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.

This means that just because the models are struggling to explain recent climate, that does not imply that their centennial projections are unreliable.

At the time, he said «the stunning finding that forests can also feed on nitrogen in rocks has the potential to change all projections related to climate change,» because it meant there could be more carbon storage on land and less in the atmosphere than climate models say.

One thing claimed is that the long run projections of the climate model runs can't be trusted because the ensemble does not do that great a job of predicting today from recent history of observations.

Projections of climate change are uncertain, firstly because they are primarily dependent on scenarios of future anthropogenic and natural forcings that are uncertain, secondly because of incomplete understanding and imprecise models of the climate system and finally because of the existence of internal climate variability.

The widespread trend of increasing heavy downpours is expected to continue, with precipitation becoming less frequent but more intense.13, 14,15,16 The patterns of the projected changes of precipitation do not contain the spatial details that characterize observed precipitation, especially in mountainous terrain, because the projections are averages from multiple models and because the effective resolution of global climate models is roughly 100 - 200 miles.

It is felt that the climate models can not be tested because it would take too long to wait for a verification of their projections.

In other words, the reason Hansen's global temperature projections were too high was primarily because his climate model had a climate sensitivity that was too high.

No climate model has ever been properly tested, which is what «validation» means, and their «projections» are nothing more than the opinions of «experts» with a conflict of interest, because they are paid to produce the models.

«Scientists were quick to declare the results of the Turner et al paper, which covered 1 per cent of the Antarctic continent, did not negate a long - term warming because of man - made climate change... «Climate model projections forced with medium emission scenarios indicate the emergence of a large anthropogenic regional warming signal, comparable in magnitude to the late - 20th - century peninsula warming, during the latter part of the current century,» the Turner research concluded.climate change... «Climate model projections forced with medium emission scenarios indicate the emergence of a large anthropogenic regional warming signal, comparable in magnitude to the late - 20th - century peninsula warming, during the latter part of the current century,» the Turner research concluded.Climate model projections forced with medium emission scenarios indicate the emergence of a large anthropogenic regional warming signal, comparable in magnitude to the late - 20th - century peninsula warming, during the latter part of the current century,» the Turner research concluded.»

For example, to assess confidence in model projections of the Australian climate, the metrics would need to include some measures of the quality of ENSO simulation because the Australian climate depends much on this variability (see Section 11.

Yet, model projections of future global warming vary, because of differing estimates of population growth, economic activity, greenhouse gas emission rates, changes in atmospheric particulate concentrations and their effects, and also because of uncertainties in climate models.

This has serious implications, because the Met Office's HadCM3 model is used to determine the Government's climate projections, which influence policy.

They could fall back on their age - old defence and claim that it's all irrelevant, because the scientists» projections for how the Amazon might respond to climate change are based on models.

I'd note that Hadley sees a median warming of 5.5 °C on our current emissions path, but presumably that's because they model warming beyond A1F1 (see also M.I.T. joins climate realists, doubles its projection of global warming by 2100 to ~ 5.5 °C from preindustrial levels).

In the latter case, the alternative relative SST measure in the lower panel does not change very much over the 21st century, even with substantial Atlantic warming projections from climate models, because, crucially, the warming projected for the tropical Atlantic in the models is not very different from that projected for the tropics as a whole.

It's not so some huge deal can be made of, e.g., 1934 now being thought to have been slightly cooler than 1999, because in and of itself that's pretty meaningless, but rather because data accuracy in turn affects the accuracy of climate model projections and in particular (in the case of this data) regional projections for the U.S.