Sentences with phrase «claims models and observations»

While acknowledging there are «differences» between modeled and observed temperatures for «periods as short as 10 to 15 years,» the IPCC's 2013 Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) claims models and observations «agree» over the 62 - year period from 1951 to 2012 (Summary for Policymakers, p. 15).

Not exact matches

This claim is complemented with a broad literature synthesis of past work in numerical weather prediction, observations, dynamical theory, and modeling in the central U.S. Importantly, the discussion also distills some notoriously confusing aspects of the super-parameterization approach into clear language and diagrams, which are a constructive contribution to the literature.

Miskolczi has taken this approach by writing yet another incoherent paper where inaccurate empirical observations and approximate properties of model calculations are put together claiming that the result is a new exact law of nature.

How Thorne et al could credibly claim that there is no reasonable evidence of a fundamental disagreement between tropospheric temperature trends from models and observations when uncertainties in both are treated comprehensively is mind - boggling.

The issue is the growing discrepancy between the climate models and observations, and the claim by Santer and others that under conditions of AGW, that any period of no warming or cooling beyond 17 years is very unlikely.

Those numbers were based on crude climate models whose validity had never been tested by observations — and even today, there remains no validation for the climate models that are at the heart of most claims of climate catastrophe.

It seems evident to me (and I do not claim that this observation is original) that the range of IPCC models do not fully sample the range of physically possible or even plausible GCMs at lower sensitivities.

It would not have occurred to me to suggest that they delete both figures, concoct a new one that obscures the AR4 uncertainty ranges in a spaghetti format, and double down on text that claims the observations match the models.

Again, all claims to the contrary are based on false assumptions and bad models, not direct observations.

The modeling of the volcanic forcings are very handwavy, and the claim that the CO2 forcing goes as ln [CO2], actually is a model result contrary to the claim that all of the attribution studies only use observations.

[Page 16] This summary paragraph claims that the spatial patterns of warming from models forced with GHG's and other anthropogenic forcings agrees well with observations.

So «fingerprint» studies which claim to find close correspondence between climate model projections and actual observations during the past 50 to 100 years are confused as to both causes and effects.

I'll bet he uses one of the NWS or other studies which claims the errors from the erroneous observations are negligible and not a significant factor in the error range of the climate models.

If you want to test Gavin Schmidt and the IPCC reports he uses to support his claims, try to obtain proof that the datasets have been adequately adjusted to remove the false raw temperature observations used in the preparation of the various models relied upon by the IPCC.

IPCC authors added a grey envelope around the AR4 envelope, presumably to give rhetorical support for their false claim about models and observations; however, this envelope did not occur in AR4 or any peer reviewed literature.

A review of observations, theory and modeling is presented to support the claim that strong anticyclonic relative vorticity can also lead to CAT through the generation of gravity wave activity by geostrophic adjustment and inertial instability.

From the caption to Figure 2 in SM's headpost: «IPCC authors added a grey envelope around the AR4 envelope, presumably to give rhetorical support for their false claim about models and observations; however, this envelope did not occur in AR4 or any peer reviewed literature.»

For years they and a number of researchers have claimed that the models have severely exaggerated the projected warming by greenhouse gases emitted by man and that observations over the past 20 years for the most part refute the theory.

let's take this to an extreme... suppose that internal variability is zero... then the «within group» s.d. is zero... suppose that models agree pretty well with each other and observations fall within the tight band of model projections... then by steve's method you create the average of models and call it a model... with an s.d. of zero... show that the model falls outside the observational s.d.... proclaim that the model fails... claim that this is a test of modelling... hence extrapolate that all models fail... even though observations fall slap bang in the model range... this result is nonsensical... per tco it isn't how models are used... where's structural uncertainty?

The authors claim an «inconsistency» between observations and models, since the surface temperature data (HadCRUT4) had a trend of 0.14 deg.