Sentences with phrase «because global climate models»

For now, Georgescu said, he will concentrate on regional modeling because global climate models do not yet offer enough resolution to illuminate climate trends in areas like the Sun Corridor.

Not exact matches

The impact of these results is wide - reaching, and Dr Pullen suggests that it may even change how we think about global climate data: «Climate models need to incorporate genetic elements because at present most do not, and their predictions would be much improved with a better understanding of plant carbon demand.climate data: «Climate models need to incorporate genetic elements because at present most do not, and their predictions would be much improved with a better understanding of plant carbon demand.Climate models need to incorporate genetic elements because at present most do not, and their predictions would be much improved with a better understanding of plant carbon demand.»

«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.

Because these waves are involved in ocean mixing and thus the transfer of heat, understanding them is crucial to global climate modeling, says Tom Peacock, a researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Because elements of this system are poorly understood and poorly represented in global climate models, collecting real - time, complementary data from a variety of areas will go a long way toward improving scientists ability to use these models for making accurate predictions about Earths climate.

Because small - scale climate features, such as clouds and atmospheric aerosol particles, have a large impact on global climate, it's important to improve the methods used to represent those climate features in the models.

«Until recently, aerosol processes were under - represented in global climate models because of disconnects between various research programs,» explained Ghan.

Speaking at an annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Barnett said climate models based on air temperatures are weak because most of the evidence for global warming is not even there.

The «significant gap in GCMs» is not because «clearly the science isn't yet well understood»; it just corresponds to the fact that Global Climate Models are not Regional Climate Models.

It would have been helpful if, in 1975, the owners of these climate models had written to Newsweek informing them that: A) their story about global cooling was wrong because B) climate models have clearly demonstrated that temperatures are about to head up rapidly.

In order to understand the potential importance of the effect, let's look at what it could do to our understanding of climate: 1) It will have zero effect on the global climate models, because a) the constraints on these models are derived from other sources b) the effect is known and there are methods for dealing the errors they introduce c) the effect they introduce is local, not global, so they can not be responsible for the signal / trend we see, but would at most introduce noise into that signal 2) It will not alter the conclusion that the climate is changing or even the degree to which it is changing because of c) above and because that conclusion is supported by multiple additional lines of evidence, all of which are consistent with the trends shown in the land stations.

No climate model has ever shown a year - on - year increase in temperatures because of the currently expected amount of global warming.

That matters because the trickiest part of global climate models appears to be how they handle ocean - atmosphere interactions, and I really have no idea how well they link changes in local wind - driven upwelling to the net thermohaline circulation.

Because there is considerable misunderstanding about global warming and the ability to forecast it, and because casting doubt about global warming was central to the arguments of Armstrong and his coauthors, we provide a tutorial on global warming and how it is incorporated into climate Because there is considerable misunderstanding about global warming and the ability to forecast it, and because casting doubt about global warming was central to the arguments of Armstrong and his coauthors, we provide a tutorial on global warming and how it is incorporated into climate because casting doubt about global warming was central to the arguments of Armstrong and his coauthors, we provide a tutorial on global warming and how it is incorporated into climate models.

While the definition of a forcing may appear a little arbitrary, the reason why radiative forcing is used is because it (conveniently) gives quite good predictions of what happens in models to the global mean temperature once the climate system has fully responded to the change.

If our analysis is correct, then this indicates that climate models underestimate the weakening of the Atlantic circulation in response to global warming — probably because the flow in these models is too stable (see Hofmann and Rahmstorf 2009).

For instance, back in the 1960s, simple climate models predicted that global warming caused by more carbon dioxide would lead to cooling in the upper atmosphere (because the heat is getting trapped at the surface).

Because minimum temperatures in the stable boundary layer are not very robust measures of the heat content in the deep atmosphere and climate models do not predict minimum temperatures well, minimum temperatures should not be used as a surrogate for measures of deep atmosphere global warming.»

This is particularly significant because many climate - change alarmists conjecture that the reason global temperatures of the 21st century are lower than their faulty climate models originally predicted is that the Earth's oceans are absorbing all the excess heat.

Because each GCM has a different climate sensitivity, the global warming which occurs due to a doubling of CO2 varies from model to model.

Islands smaller than the spatial resolution used in global climate models (GCMs)-- including French Polynesia, the Marshall Islands, and the Lesser Antilles — are difficult to assess because GCMs can only provide estimates of precipitation there, not potential evapotranspiration.

However, because climate scientists at the time believed a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would cause a larger global heat imbalance than today's estimates, the actual climate sensitivities were approximatly 18 % lower (for example, the «Best» model sensitivity was actually closer to 2.1 °C for doubled CO2).

However, as in the FAR, because climate scientists at the time believed a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would cause a larger global heat imbalance than current estimates, the actual «best estimate» model sensitivity was closer to 2.1 °C for doubled CO2.

This is one of the more challenging aspects of modeling of the climate system because precipitation involves not only large - scale processes that are well - resolved by models but also small - scale process, such as convection, that must be parameterized in the current generation of global and regional climate models.

It goes like this: The good scientists agree that global warming is human induced and would be addressed if America ratified the Kyoto global warming pact, while bad heretical scientists question climate models that predict Armageddon because they are venal and corrupted by oil money.

It's a difficult question to answer, though, because climate models «are not in agreement on what should happen in the Pacific as a consequence of global warming,» Hartmann said.

That's because comparing the average global temperature created by climate models and the global average temperature from observationally - based datasets — the heart of the Michaels and Knappenberger exercise — is to compare

In response to shareholder questions, Tillerson reiterated his views that climate change represents another risk among many that the company manages; that the ramifications of global warming are unclear because «the [scientific] models simply are not that good»; and that technology advances will provide «engineered solutions» to address whatever problems emerge.

However, type 4 downscaling, while providing the illusion of higher skill because of the high spatial resolution climate fields, has never shown skill at prediction beyond what is already there in the parent global model.

Just because the use of models is the best we have to try a determine what will happen to global temperatures as CO2 quantities go on increasing, is no reason to believe that the output of climate models is anything other that scientific wild a ** e guesses.

Proponents of human - caused global warming might claim that climate models predict increased snowfall in the Antarctic, because more warmth draws more moisture into the air that snows out.

This is not too surprising because (a) CO2 concentrations didn't actually increase much until about the 1950s, and (b) the current climate models don't include many mechanisms to account for natural global warming.

Because the alleged IPCC «consensus» is so widely trusted, many climate scientists who haven't studied man - made global warming theory or the predictions of the computer models assume that they must be reliable merely «because the IPCC says so», rather than checking for themBecause the alleged IPCC «consensus» is so widely trusted, many climate scientists who haven't studied man - made global warming theory or the predictions of the computer models assume that they must be reliable merely «because the IPCC says so», rather than checking for thembecause the IPCC says so», rather than checking for themselves.

And fourth, in another new study, scientists confirmed that climate models way overestimated global warming for the last 20 years because... wait for it... the models are likely unable to simulate natural climate variation correctly.

This is important, because many people mistakenly assume that the authors of the detection / attribution chapters in the IPCC reports were actually testing man - made global warming theory and the climate models.

Because the isotopic signatures measured in the study are lower than the values typically entered into global climate change models, the results of this study suggest the models may be underestimating the change to atmospheric carbon - 13 for each simulated emissions scenario.

Firstly, even with man - made global warming taken into account, because of the short - term noise due to the internal variability in the climate system, climate models predict that there will be decades where natural cycles dampen the man - made warming trend.

Their belief came about because the optical physics of aerosols, originating from Sagan and introduced to climate modelling by his ex-students, Lacis and Hansen in 1974 at GISS / NAS, predicts the cloud part of «global dimming», the increase of albedo by aerosols supposed to hide present CO2 - AGW.

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.

Nic Is it not true that the harsh reality is that the output of the climate models which the IPCC rely's on on their dangerous global warming forecasts have no necessary connection to reality because of their structural inadequacies.

It's a shame that Global Climate Modelling has been caught up in the Global Warming via CO2 thing because the model described is of great interest and value just on its own even without the millstone of CO2 having to be carried along with it.

Increased snowfall over the region is consistent with global climate models because a warmer atmosphere holds more moisture.

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.

Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human - induced global warming... This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected.

However, because climate scientists at the time believed a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would cause a larger global heat imbalance than is currently believed, the actual climate sensitivities were approximatly 18 % lower (for example, the «Best» model sensitivity was actually closer to 2.1 °C for doubled CO2).

That we tend to see much more discussion about global warming is I think because of the limitations of the climate models when they go to more regional and seasonal predictions and refinements of max versus min temperature trends.

Translating the above to climate science, if you tell me that in 100 years earth inhabited by your children is going to hell in a handbasket, because our most complicated models built with all those horrendously complicated equestions you can find in math, show that the global temperatures will be 10 deg higher and icecaps will melt, sea will invade land, plant / animal ecosystem will get whacked out of order causing food supply to be badly disrupted, then I, without much climate science expertise, can easily ask you the following questions and scrutinize the results: a) where can I see that your model's futuristic predictions about global temp, icecaps, eco system changes in the past have come true, even for much shorter periods of time, like say 20 years, before I take this for granted and make radical changes in my life?

The weather prediction model used in this research is advantageous because it assesses details about future climate at a smaller geographic scale than global models, providing reliable simulations not only on the amounts of summer precipitation, but also on its frequency and timing.

This insight, backed by the palaeo - climatic record (see Chapter 2, Section 2.4), is a new challenge for global change science because now thresholds have to be identified and their values need to be estimated using the entire hierarchy of climate models.

The main evidence for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW), the principal alleged adverse effect of human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), is climate models built by CAGW supporters in a field where models with real predictive power do not exist and can not be built with any demonstrable accuracy beyond a week or two because climate and weather are coupled non-linear chaotic systems.