Sentences with phrase «correct model of the climate»

If each embodies a correct model of the climate, and each has a different climate sensitivity, only one (at most) should replicate observed data.

Not exact matches

If models of Southwestern responses to climate change are correct, Southwest U.S. deserts should get warmer and drier.

When they corrected the error, Wentz and Schabel derived a warming trend of about 0.07 °C per decade, more in line with surface thermometers and climate models.

A Columbia Engineering team led by Pierre Gentine, professor of earth and environmental engineering, and Adam Sobel, professor of applied physics and applied mathematics and of earth and environmental sciences, has developed a new approach, opposite to climate models, to correct climate model inaccuracies using a high - resolution atmospheric model that more precisely resolves clouds and convection (precipitation) and parameterizes the feedback between convection and atmospheric circulation.

«When the processes are correct in the climate models the level of climate sensitivity is far higher.

Next, scientists will work on correcting the representation of tropical cloud depth in global climate models to better project future climate change.

Methods: Researchers Drs. Samson M. Hagos and L. Ruby Leung, atmospheric scientists at PNNL, surveyed tropical divergence in three global climate models, three global reanalyses (models corrected with observational data), and four sets of field campaign soundings.

The Soon - Monckton memo goes even further, claiming that they «have recently discovered and corrected a long - standing error of physics in the climate models» that would shows any climate change due to human causes will be «too small and slow to be harmful and will prove beneficial.»

Ricke and Caldeira sought to correct that by combining the results from two large modeling studies one about the way carbon emissions interact with the global carbon cycle and one about the effect of carbon on the Earth's climate used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate climate used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Climate Change.

RC press rebuttals should be syndicated in every news outlet out there, correct interpretations of climate science is regularly mangled, to the point where I get Arctic visitors, some journalists, who regularly quote bad science from misleading news sources, newspaper stories are considered like science journals, peer reviewed quoted news stories especially, namely that 10 year cooling German model forecast.

If you set out to model the climate of any of those moons, you would need to get their movement with respect to the sun nearly correct, and motion around the solar system barycentre would be part of that.

Models are compared primarily to the current climatology and all of the adjusting goes into getting the mean climate / seasonal cycle etc. correct.

«In other words, the projections shown here were made before the observations confirmed them as being correct, striking at the heart of the argument that modellers tune their models to yield the correct climate change results.»

With due regard for complexities of the issue, if my understanding of these terms is basically correct, then I have a problem in that while these two elements must be integrated to produce climate truth, it's not clear to me how, without a validated model in the first place, all the proper data can be gathered.

Frightening thought — if and only if the AGW centric prediction of future climate is either not completely correct, or out right wrong, consider extreme scenarios which would result in a drastically (and painfully) different outcome than the prophecied sea level rise / climatic tropical expansion / northerly movement of species model.

It's useful to think of this as an example of Bayesian priors in action — given that 99 % of the criticisms we hear about climate science are bogus or based on deep confusions about what modeling is for, scepticism is an appropriate first response, but because we are actually scientists, not shills, we are happy to correct real errors — sometimes they will matter, and sometimes they won't.

There's no way out of it: if the greenhouse gas theory were correct and the climate models were really modelling the «real climate» then the high latitudes would be warming the fastest.

It also proves that Howard Hayden, physics professor emeritus at the University of Connecticut, was correct in describing the machinery of the climate model - hysteria industrial complex as one that takes «garbage in» and spits «gospel out.»

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).

Broadly speaking, we know that it is unlikely that current climate models are systematically overestimating sensitivity to CO2 by very much, since most of the major models can get into the ballpark of the correct tropical and Southern Hemisphere cooling when CO2 is dropped to 180 parts per milllion.

That said, human - induced climate changes there, and elsewhere, will, over the coming decades, reach the amplitude of known past and natural persistent variations, if the models are correct.

Scafetta and West's 2006 paper noted that if their conclusions are correct, then the climatic effects of solar variance are currently under estimated in the climate models.

Not only is the true picture closest to Y0, the midrange estimate, and the one the representative of climate science presented as likeliest, but the data follows the model prediction if Y0 is correct very closely.

However, in my paper I have argued that if the long term of the solar variability falls down and the Moberg temperature data are correct, the actual models are very wrong because they will never be able to reproduce the millenaria cycle presented in the Moberg data without a strong climate sensitivity to solar cicle.

At least with a model like the MIT one used in Forest 2006 one can (if the descriptions of it are correct) set the key climate sensitivity, effective ocean diffusivity and aerosol forcing levels independently and with some confidence (I'm not the person to ask how much) that the simulated results reflect those settings.

In a recent interview, Nordhaus - whose models project a smaller economic impact than most - said that regardless of whether the models showing larger or smaller economic impacts from climate change are correct, «We've got to get together as a community of nations and impose restraints on greenhouse gas emissions and raise carbon prices.

The relevance of any such model to the real climate depends on whether or not the assumptions on which it is based are more - or-less correct.

In any case, if I'm correct, then the apparent failure of Hansen's prediction was not to foresee the industrialization of the 3rd world nations and its ramifications, and not some more basic problem with his climate model.

And, in case it slipped your notice, NONE of the climate models have been correct in their predictions of 21st century temperature trends.

However, our new statistical estimate of unforced variability is not radically different from that simulated by climate models and for the most part we find that climate models seem to get the «big picture» correct.

For this honest doubt and skepticism that the highly complex global climate models are correct you have the temerity to socially stigmatize them in a scientific journal with a catch - all term that implies that they are as morally reprehensible as those that «deny» that the Nazi Holocaust of genocide against the Jews?

But climate models of global warming should be corrected to better account for changes in solar activity, according to Nicola Scafetta and Bruce West of Duke University.

Correcting climate models to better reflect advances in knowledge about various forcings, such as solar variation and the impact of aerosols, is suspect, and / or

Some 35 years ago, Hansen developed one of the world's first climate models and produced prediction after prediction about rising global warming that proved to be correct.

Hansen, 74, developed one of the world's first climate models 35 years ago and has produced prediction after prediction about rising global warming that proved to be correct.

Even if CO2 mitigation strategies are successful and climate model projections are correct, an impact on the climate would not be expected until the latter part of the 21st century.

Climate prediction models share one thing in common with them: even if they could be right, their creators will not want to believe them if predicted results do not correspond to politically correct preconceived notions of the establishment about how they should be...

Are the models capable of giving us a correct answer in a probabilistic sense about the attribution of 20th century climate change, or sensitivity to CO2 doubling?

And climate models are not evidence of anything but the beliefs (both correct and incorrect) of the programmers.

In terms of climate models, «correct» is not possible even in theory, you will only ever be looking for the best approximation possible.

Climate data or model projections in which we have «very high confidence» have at least a 9 out of 10 chance of being correct.

As we learn further down this is based on a yet another study by parti - pris alarmists ramping up the climate change scare narrative using dodgy computer modeled projections of what might happen if all their parameters are correct (which they aren't).

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.

Some apparent problems with the predictions of climate models, for example, have actually turned out to be due to problems with real - world data caused by the failure to correct for factors such as the gradual changes in orbits of satellites.

Her study accounted for propagation of organized storms, and also included correct daily precipitation cycles across the U.S., neither of which are accurately represented in current climate models.

So it is correct that CO2 did not trigger the warmings, but it definitely contributed to them — and according to climate theory and model experiments, greenhouse gas forcing was the dominant factor in the magnitude of the ultimate change.

The raw daily climate model simulation results were bias corrected according to the ISI - MIP protocol (1, 23), despite known caveats with respect to the use of bias correction in climate impact studies (24).

Along with the corrected value of F2xCO2 being higher than the one used in the paper, and the correct comparison being with the model's effective climate sensitivity of ~ 2.0 C, this results in a higher estimate of equilibrium efficacy from Historical total forcing.

I certainly agree that there are many variables impacting the climate and that all of these and the correct weighting of each must be taken into consideration in order for a model to effectively predict future climate.

This study analyzed potential hydroclimatic change in the Peace River basin in the province of British Columbia, Canada, based on two structurally different approaches: (i) statistically downscaled global climate models (GCMs) using the bias - corrected spatial disaggregation (BCSD) and (ii) dynamically downscaled GCM with the Canadian Regional Climate Model climate models (GCMs) using the bias - corrected spatial disaggregation (BCSD) and (ii) dynamically downscaled GCM with the Canadian Regional Climate Model Climate Model (CRCM).