Sentences with phrase «consensus model of climate»

That this would occur was a prediction of climate theory dating back 114 years, so the warming supports the consensus model of climate.

The consensus model of climate has a long track record of successful predictions — that makes it very unlikely that it is fundamentally wrong.

Not exact matches

In the new study, researchers analyzed the results of 96 existing climate models to see if there was any consensus among them.

The three papers remove a major stumbling block to a scientific consensus, says Benjamin Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, lead author of the climate model study.

I don't follow climate science in detail, with all the ins and outs of competing models, but as an interested non-specialist I hope to live long enough to see a consensus explanation emerge!

By Kenneth Richard «Consensus» Science Takes A Hit In 2017 During 2017, 485 scientific papers have been published that cast doubt on the position that anthropogenic CO2 emissions function as the climate's fundamental control knob... or that otherwise question the efficacy of climate models or the related «consensus» positions commonly endorsed by policymakers and mainstream media.

Jim Steele, # 139 — «First realize that the consensus that CO2 has driven recent climate change is based on the inability of climate models to detect natural variability associated with recent changes.»

I would welcome any amount of scientific investment by fossil fuel interests to research alternative models to the consensus model of Earth's climate.

«Over the past several years a clear scientific consensus has emerged,» Cohen wrote in September 1982, reporting on Exxon's own analysis of climate models.

JS @ 137: First realize that the consensus that CO2 has driven recent climate change is based on the inability of climate models to detect natural variability associated with recent changes.

Slow approximates the consensus of current climate models, intermediate is what they consider more likely, and fast is their upper bound.

So, Jacob, if you can show me a theory that makes as much sense of Earth's climate and makes as many verified predictions as the current consensus model and which doesn't imply serious problems due to warming, I'll be the first to pat you on the back.

«Yes, sea ice seems to behaving as the consensus of the climate models have been projecting — more rapid and larger response in the northern high latitudes than anywhere else, flat to possible increase in [southern hemisphere] sea ice as warming takes hold,» he wrote.

I am not suggesting that research on longterm climate should be discontinued, but with no change in consensus after 20 years of modeling, maybe it is time for a new approach?

Just because the current consensus of coupled GCM model studies and other process studies strongly suggest an anthropogenic cause for the current (1989 - centered) climate trend, can not and should not bully the objective science of defining observed climate trends, into hypothesizing and projecting the 1989 - centered climate forward in time even one year.

With the emerging consensus that a major La Nina event would develop, climate modeling centers had already warned in June 2010 of potentially severe drought conditions at the Horn of Africa.»

If the consensus scientists were to acknowledge that climate models are not suited to that purpose, arguments that skeptics are «tak [ing] a models conclusions outside the scope of what its ability to do is» would carry more weight.

In their wisdom the IPCC adopted a massively simplified dumbed down «consensus» verified model of world climate.

The outputs of climate models aren't samples of a population, except to the extent they are samples of the uncertainty of climate modellers, and hence a measure of the lack of consensus among them.

I am talking about a consensus of multiple lines of evidence (empirical evidence in addition to modeling, logic etc.) When there is a large degree of uncertainty, as there is in climate science, a consensus of evidence is most definitely very important.

The truth is that ALEC has crafted model legislation that misrepresents the science of climate change and hosted prominent climate science deniers at its conferences, and ALEC officials — including CEO Lisa Nelson — have refused to acknowledge or outright denied the scientific consensus that burning fossil fuels and other human activities are causing climate change.

«Consensus» Science Takes A Hit In 2017 During 2017, 485 scientific papers have been published that cast doubt on the position that anthropogenic CO2 emissions function as the climate's fundamental control knob... or that otherwise question the efficacy of climate models or the related «consensus» positions commonly endorsed by policymakers and mainstream media.

The Callegari report includes slides on the consensus of climate models -LSB-...]

Essentially, the demonstrably large failures of both global and regional climate models represent a systemic failure created by those consensus «experts.»

The IPCC is straightforward in its introduction to attribution and doesn't claim anything other than that attribution needs some kind of modelling (because we can't put the climate in a bottle) and that this method relies on a number of different tactics, including the consensus of what these tactics mean of the experts.

The experts say their research DOES NOT UNDERMINE THE SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS THAT EMISSIONS OF GREENHOUSE GASES FROM HUMAN ACTIVITY DRIVE GLOBAL WARMING, BUT THEY CALL FOR A CLOSER EXAMINATION OF THE WAY CLIMATE COMPUTER MODELS CONSIDER WATER VAPOUR.

The last point of contention I have with the «consensus» position is that all of the projected climate catastrophes are based on climate model projections decades in the future.

When Armour factored rising sensitivity into that 2013 observation - based Nature Geoscience report and recalculated climate sensitivity, he got a best estimate of 2.9 º C — a value well within the IPCC's consensus range and the range predicted by models.

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 themselves.

Or, at least, none of the consensus climate models predicted this cooling, which is why, to avoid looking completely ridiculous, AGW believers now refer to «climate change» rather than «global warming.»

In terms of your request for something substantial, I responded to your original claim that «the theory relies on computer models» with a link to a RealClimate post that shows this claim is not correct — rather than computer models, the foundations of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change are built upon our understanding of how the atmosphere works and how we are changing it by emitting greenhouse gases.

Here is an example of what I'm getting at: * Climate change is a myth or conspiracy - The temperature record is phony - the consensus is just politics * Climate change is unproven - The models are wrong - One hundred years isn't enough evidence * It's not our fault - Volcano's emit way more CO2 - It could be natural variation * A warmer climate is nothing to worry about - It was warmer in the middle ages - A warmer climate is a good thing * Mitigation will destroy the economy - We don't know enough to act - Reducing fossil fuel will destroy us * It's too late or someone else's problem - Kyoto is too little too late - The US absorbs more CO2 than it emits This is very rough example, but if you think it is headed in the right direction, I'd be happy to go through your guide in more detail and come up with something concrete - just give me thClimate change is a myth or conspiracy - The temperature record is phony - the consensus is just politics * Climate change is unproven - The models are wrong - One hundred years isn't enough evidence * It's not our fault - Volcano's emit way more CO2 - It could be natural variation * A warmer climate is nothing to worry about - It was warmer in the middle ages - A warmer climate is a good thing * Mitigation will destroy the economy - We don't know enough to act - Reducing fossil fuel will destroy us * It's too late or someone else's problem - Kyoto is too little too late - The US absorbs more CO2 than it emits This is very rough example, but if you think it is headed in the right direction, I'd be happy to go through your guide in more detail and come up with something concrete - just give me thClimate change is unproven - The models are wrong - One hundred years isn't enough evidence * It's not our fault - Volcano's emit way more CO2 - It could be natural variation * A warmer climate is nothing to worry about - It was warmer in the middle ages - A warmer climate is a good thing * Mitigation will destroy the economy - We don't know enough to act - Reducing fossil fuel will destroy us * It's too late or someone else's problem - Kyoto is too little too late - The US absorbs more CO2 than it emits This is very rough example, but if you think it is headed in the right direction, I'd be happy to go through your guide in more detail and come up with something concrete - just give me thclimate is nothing to worry about - It was warmer in the middle ages - A warmer climate is a good thing * Mitigation will destroy the economy - We don't know enough to act - Reducing fossil fuel will destroy us * It's too late or someone else's problem - Kyoto is too little too late - The US absorbs more CO2 than it emits This is very rough example, but if you think it is headed in the right direction, I'd be happy to go through your guide in more detail and come up with something concrete - just give me thclimate is a good thing * Mitigation will destroy the economy - We don't know enough to act - Reducing fossil fuel will destroy us * It's too late or someone else's problem - Kyoto is too little too late - The US absorbs more CO2 than it emits This is very rough example, but if you think it is headed in the right direction, I'd be happy to go through your guide in more detail and come up with something concrete - just give me the word.

He accuses the NYT of playing down the seriousness of global warming by ignoring: «the substantial number of climate scientists who believe that the consensus predictions are much too optimistic, including some of the leading scientists right here [at MIT] who have recently run what they call the most extensive modelling ever done and concluded that it's far worse than anticipated and that their own results are an understatement...» That would be the MIT Climate Research group financed by Exxon, Shell, BP andclimate scientists who believe that the consensus predictions are much too optimistic, including some of the leading scientists right here [at MIT] who have recently run what they call the most extensive modelling ever done and concluded that it's far worse than anticipated and that their own results are an understatement...» That would be the MIT Climate Research group financed by Exxon, Shell, BP andClimate Research group financed by Exxon, Shell, BP and Total.

Honestly, it's a wonder anyone still listens to any of the conventional, «consensus» climate modelers at this point, especially the modeling «experts» at NASA.

«The authors write that North Pacific Decadal Variability (NPDV) «is a key component in predictability studies of both regional and global climate change,»... they emphasize that given the links between both the PDO and the NPGO with global climate, the accurate characterization and the degree of predictability of these two modes in coupled climate models is an important «open question in climate dynamics» that needs to be addressed... report that model - derived «temporal and spatial statistics of the North Pacific Ocean modes exhibit significant discrepancies from observations in their twentieth - century climate... conclude that «for implications on future climate change, the coupled climate models show no consensus on projected future changes in frequency of either the first or second leading pattern of North Pacific SST anomalies,» and they say that «the lack of a consensus in changes in either mode also affects confidence in projected changes in the overlying atmospheric circulation.»»

Despite this well documented, spectacular and long known failure of the «consensus,» «expert» climate models, the stuck - on - stupid tabloid press is just now coming to grips with their own spectacular stupidity (gullibility?).

To better understand how people think, process and respond to the scientific consensus message, this study investigates a «gateway belief model» (GBM) of public responses to climate change.

Thinking the pre-1998 warming phase was of permanent nature, not transient, the consensus climate «experts,» and their sophisticated climate models, predicted this steady warming trend would just drone on year after year, as far as the mind could speculate.

There's of course all the new solar physics models that have been released in the past few years which indicates the sun, not CO2, is the primary climate factor, and they are predicting global cooling as well (and having a difficult time getting published and taken seriously by the «consensus» holders):

DAGW «consensus» believers apparently do not like your analyses, because they are based on actual observations of past climate trends rather than on model predictions of future climate changes, which myopically fixate on the human - induced aspect only.

Prof Judith Curry, the former chair of Earth and atmospheric sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, added: «It is inappropriate to dismiss the arguments of the so - called contrarians, since their disagreement with the consensus reflects conflicts of values and a preference for the empirical (i.e. what has been observed) versus the hypothetical (i.e. what is projected from climate models).

What is the consensus view on the nature of modeled «internal climate variability»?

The InsideClimate News series shows Exxon's own models confirmed a «clear scientific consensus» of the severity of climate change, and warned that by the time the rise in temperatures became unmistakable it might be irreversible.

Some of my «opponents» don't see the contradiction when they rely on uncertainty in climate models to «disprove» the general consensus, and yet are content to rely on innuendo to rubbish the scientists.

The climate science consensus today is that these speculative climate forecasts, based on flawed computer models, did not happen and expert analysis of the gold - standard of temperature datasets (the UK's global HadCRUT4) confirms it.

In this case the Sun could make a difference of about 0.5 °C in the surface temperatures now projected by consensus climate models for doubled concentrations of CO2.

It is intellectually dishonest to devote several pages to cherry - picking studies that disagree with the IPCC consensus on net health effects because you don't like its scientific conclusion, while then devoting several pages to hiding behind [a misstatement of] the U.N. consensus on sea level rise because you know a lot reasonable people think the U.N. wildly underestimated the upper end of the range and you want to attack Al Gore for worrying about 20 - foot sea level rise.On this blog, I have tried to be clear what I believe with my earlier three - part series: Since sea level, arctic ice, and most other climate change indicators have been changing faster than most IPCC models projected and since the IPCC neglects key amplifying carbon cycle feedbacks, the IPCC reports almost certainly underestimate future climate impacts.

A Growing Volume Of Evidence Undercuts «Consensus» Science During the first 6 months of 2017, 285 scientific papers have already been published that cast doubt on the position that anthropogenic CO2 emissions function as the climate's fundamental control knob... or that otherwise question the efficacy of climate models or the related «consensus» positions commonly endorsed by -LSB-..Of Evidence Undercuts «Consensus» Science During the first 6 months of 2017, 285 scientific papers have already been published that cast doubt on the position that anthropogenic CO2 emissions function as the climate's fundamental control knob... or that otherwise question the efficacy of climate models or the related «consensus» positions commonly endorsed by -LSB-..of 2017, 285 scientific papers have already been published that cast doubt on the position that anthropogenic CO2 emissions function as the climate's fundamental control knob... or that otherwise question the efficacy of climate models or the related «consensus» positions commonly endorsed by -LSB-..of climate models or the related «consensus» positions commonly endorsed by -LSB-...]

During the first 6 months of 2017, 285 scientific papers have already been published that cast doubt on the position that anthropogenic CO2 emissions function as the climate's fundamental control knob... or that otherwise question the efficacy of climate models or the related «consensus» positions commonly endorsed by policymakers and mainstream media.

The not - for - profit project, which is being funded out of Winton's philanthropic budget, is hoping to tempt climate scientists to put their money where their models are, and to provide a clear benchmark of the academic consensus at a time of intense interest in man - made climate change.