Sentences with phrase «even in global climate models»

Moreover, it is not clear that the relationship that happens to exist in CMIP5 models between present day biases and future warming is a stable one, even in global climate models.

Not exact matches

I confess that I have become somewhat blasé about the range of exciting — I think revolutionary is probably more accurate — technologies that we are rolling out today: our work in genomics and its translation into varieties that are reaching poor farmers today; our innovative integration of long — term and multilocation trials with crop models and modern IT and communications technology to reach farmers in ways we never even imagined five years ago; our vision to create a C4 rice and see to it that Golden Rice reaches poor and hungry children; maintaining productivity gains in the face of dynamic pests and pathogens; understanding the nature of the rice grain and what makes for good quality; our many efforts to change the way rice is grown to meet the challenges of changing rural economies, changing societies, and a changing climate; and, our extraordinary array of partnerships that has placed us at the forefront of the CGIAR change process through the Global Rice Science Partnership.

Over the past 34 years, rainfall in Uganda has decreased by about 12 percent even though many of the global climate models predict an increase in rainfall for the area, according to an international team of researchers.

The ocean's thermal inertia, which delays some global warming for decades and even centuries, is accounted for in global climate models and its effect is confirmed via measurements of Earth's energy balance (see next section).

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 stationIn 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 stationin the land stations.

Although the Met Office Hadley Center model projects extreme drying and warming in the Amazon due to ongoing climate change, and there may even be a commitment to long - term decline of part of the Amazon forest even at just 2 degrees global warming above pre-industrial, other climate models show less of a drying or even none at all.

Mike's work, like that of previous award winners, is diverse, and includes pioneering and highly cited work in time series analysis (an elegant use of Thomson's multitaper spectral analysis approach to detect spatiotemporal oscillations in the climate record and methods for smoothing temporal data), decadal climate variability (the term «Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation» or «AMO» was coined by Mike in an interview with Science's Richard Kerr about a paper he had published with Tom Delworth of GFDL showing evidence in both climate model simulations and observational data for a 50 - 70 year oscillation in the climate system; significantly Mike also published work with Kerry Emanuel in 2006 showing that the AMO concept has been overstated as regards its role in 20th century tropical Atlantic SST changes, a finding recently reaffirmed by a study published in Nature), in showing how changes in radiative forcing from volcanoes can affect ENSO, in examining the role of solar variations in explaining the pattern of the Medieval Climate Anomaly and Little Ice Age, the relationship between the climate changes of past centuries and phenomena such as Atlantic tropical cyclones and global sea level, and even a bit of work in atmospheric chemistry (an analysis of beryllium - 7 measureclimate record and methods for smoothing temporal data), decadal climate variability (the term «Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation» or «AMO» was coined by Mike in an interview with Science's Richard Kerr about a paper he had published with Tom Delworth of GFDL showing evidence in both climate model simulations and observational data for a 50 - 70 year oscillation in the climate system; significantly Mike also published work with Kerry Emanuel in 2006 showing that the AMO concept has been overstated as regards its role in 20th century tropical Atlantic SST changes, a finding recently reaffirmed by a study published in Nature), in showing how changes in radiative forcing from volcanoes can affect ENSO, in examining the role of solar variations in explaining the pattern of the Medieval Climate Anomaly and Little Ice Age, the relationship between the climate changes of past centuries and phenomena such as Atlantic tropical cyclones and global sea level, and even a bit of work in atmospheric chemistry (an analysis of beryllium - 7 measureclimate variability (the term «Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation» or «AMO» was coined by Mike in an interview with Science's Richard Kerr about a paper he had published with Tom Delworth of GFDL showing evidence in both climate model simulations and observational data for a 50 - 70 year oscillation in the climate system; significantly Mike also published work with Kerry Emanuel in 2006 showing that the AMO concept has been overstated as regards its role in 20th century tropical Atlantic SST changes, a finding recently reaffirmed by a study published in Nature), in showing how changes in radiative forcing from volcanoes can affect ENSO, in examining the role of solar variations in explaining the pattern of the Medieval Climate Anomaly and Little Ice Age, the relationship between the climate changes of past centuries and phenomena such as Atlantic tropical cyclones and global sea level, and even a bit of work in atmospheric chemistry (an analysis of beryllium - 7 measureclimate model simulations and observational data for a 50 - 70 year oscillation in the climate system; significantly Mike also published work with Kerry Emanuel in 2006 showing that the AMO concept has been overstated as regards its role in 20th century tropical Atlantic SST changes, a finding recently reaffirmed by a study published in Nature), in showing how changes in radiative forcing from volcanoes can affect ENSO, in examining the role of solar variations in explaining the pattern of the Medieval Climate Anomaly and Little Ice Age, the relationship between the climate changes of past centuries and phenomena such as Atlantic tropical cyclones and global sea level, and even a bit of work in atmospheric chemistry (an analysis of beryllium - 7 measureclimate system; significantly Mike also published work with Kerry Emanuel in 2006 showing that the AMO concept has been overstated as regards its role in 20th century tropical Atlantic SST changes, a finding recently reaffirmed by a study published in Nature), in showing how changes in radiative forcing from volcanoes can affect ENSO, in examining the role of solar variations in explaining the pattern of the Medieval Climate Anomaly and Little Ice Age, the relationship between the climate changes of past centuries and phenomena such as Atlantic tropical cyclones and global sea level, and even a bit of work in atmospheric chemistry (an analysis of beryllium - 7 measureClimate Anomaly and Little Ice Age, the relationship between the climate changes of past centuries and phenomena such as Atlantic tropical cyclones and global sea level, and even a bit of work in atmospheric chemistry (an analysis of beryllium - 7 measureclimate changes of past centuries and phenomena such as Atlantic tropical cyclones and global sea level, and even a bit of work in atmospheric chemistry (an analysis of beryllium - 7 measurements).

Even if the study were right... (which it is not) mainstream scientists use * three * methods to predict a global warming trend... not just climate computer models (which stand up extremely well for general projections by the way) under world - wide scrutiny... and have for all intents and purposes already correctly predicted the future -(Hansen 1988 in front of Congress and Pinatubo).

Furthermore, ocean acidification is happening even more quickly in the Arctic, as shown in Stenacher et al. (2009, April), «Imminent ocean acidification in the Arctic projected with the NCAR global coupled carbon cycle - climate model,» http://www.biogeosciences.net/6/515/2009/bg-6-515-2009.pdf (open access):

Even putting aside the OHC data and fingerprinting, there is absolutely no evidence in model simulations (or in prevailing reconstructions of the Holocene), that an unforced climate would exhibit half - century timescale global temperature swings of order ~ 1 C. I don't see a good theoretical reason why this should be the case, but since Judith lives on «planet observations» it should be a pause for thought.

This result would be strongly dependent on the exact dynamic response of the Greenland ice sheet to surface meltwater, which is modeled poorly in todays global models.Yes human influence on the climate is real and we might even now be able to document changes in the behavior of weather phenomena related to disasters (e.g., Emanuel 2005), but we certainly haven't yet seen it in the impact record (i.e., economic losses) of extreme events.

Global temperature has in recent years increased more slowly than before, but this is within the normal natural variability that always exists, and also within the range of predictions by climate models — even despite some cool forcing factors such as the deep solar minimum not included in the models.

Yadvinder Malhi, an ecologist at Oxford specializing in the Amazon, said that nearly all climate models simulating the impacts of global warming show the area staying wet even as other parts of the vast basin get drier.

Updated, 3:10 p.m. Using climate models and observations, a fascinating study in this week's issue of Nature Climate Change points to a marked recent warming of the Atlantic Ocean as a powerful shaper of a host of notable changes in climate and ocean patterns in the last couple of decades — including Pacific wind, sea level and ocean patterns, the decade - plus hiatus in global warming and even California's deepening dclimate models and observations, a fascinating study in this week's issue of Nature Climate Change points to a marked recent warming of the Atlantic Ocean as a powerful shaper of a host of notable changes in climate and ocean patterns in the last couple of decades — including Pacific wind, sea level and ocean patterns, the decade - plus hiatus in global warming and even California's deepening dClimate Change points to a marked recent warming of the Atlantic Ocean as a powerful shaper of a host of notable changes in climate and ocean patterns in the last couple of decades — including Pacific wind, sea level and ocean patterns, the decade - plus hiatus in global warming and even California's deepening dclimate and ocean patterns in the last couple of decades — including Pacific wind, sea level and ocean patterns, the decade - plus hiatus in global warming and even California's deepening drought.

[12] In fact, using the Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Induced Climate Change developed by researchers at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, even if all carbon dioxide emissions in the United States were effectively eliminated, there would be less than two - tenths of a degree Celsius reduction in global temperatureIn fact, using the Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Induced Climate Change developed by researchers at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, even if all carbon dioxide emissions in the United States were effectively eliminated, there would be less than two - tenths of a degree Celsius reduction in global temperaturein the United States were effectively eliminated, there would be less than two - tenths of a degree Celsius reduction in global temperaturein global temperatures.

In 50 years, even if the warmest global climate models were correct (even the cooler ones look too warm right now) what will be the most important thing to the 9 billion people on this planet?.

Type 2 results, even from global models used in a prediction mode, still retain real world information in the atmosphere (such as from long wave jet stream patterns), as well as sea surface temperatures, deep soil moisture, and other climate variables that have long term persistence.

Yet according to official climate models, even if the U.S. enacted an immediate and total ban on all human emissions of greenhouse gases, the difference in global temperature by the year 2050 would be a mere five one - hundredths of a degree Celsius.

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.

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.

The ocean's thermal inertia, which delays some global warming for decades and even centuries, is accounted for in global climate models and its effect is confirmed via measurements of Earth's energy balance (see next section).

«Climate science» as it is used by warmists implies adherence to a set of beliefs: (1) Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations will warm the Earth's surface and atmosphere; (2) Human production of CO2 is producing significant increases in CO2 concentration; (3) The rate of rise of temperature in the 20th and 21st centuries is unprecedented compared to the rates of change of temperature in the previous two millennia and this can only be due to rising greenhouse gas concentrations; (4) The climate of the 19th century was ideal and may be taken as a standard to compare against any current climate; (5) global climate models, while still not perfect, are good enough to indicate that continued use of fossil fuels at projected rates in the 21st century will cause the CO2 concentration to rise to a high level by 2100 (possibly 700 to 900 ppm); (6) The global average temperature under this condition will rise more than 3 °C from the late 19th century ideal; (7) The negative impact on humanity of such a rise will be enormous; (8) The only alternative to such a disaster is to immediately and sharply reduce CO2 emissions (reducing emissions in 2050 by 80 % compared to today's rate) and continue further reductions after 2050; (9) Even with such draconian CO2 reductions, the CO2 concentration is likely to reach at least 450 to 500 ppm by 2100 resulting in significant damage to humanity; (10) Such reductions in CO2 emissions are technically feasible and economically affordable while providing adequate energy to a growing world population that is increasingly industriaClimate science» as it is used by warmists implies adherence to a set of beliefs: (1) Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations will warm the Earth's surface and atmosphere; (2) Human production of CO2 is producing significant increases in CO2 concentration; (3) The rate of rise of temperature in the 20th and 21st centuries is unprecedented compared to the rates of change of temperature in the previous two millennia and this can only be due to rising greenhouse gas concentrations; (4) The climate of the 19th century was ideal and may be taken as a standard to compare against any current climate; (5) global climate models, while still not perfect, are good enough to indicate that continued use of fossil fuels at projected rates in the 21st century will cause the CO2 concentration to rise to a high level by 2100 (possibly 700 to 900 ppm); (6) The global average temperature under this condition will rise more than 3 °C from the late 19th century ideal; (7) The negative impact on humanity of such a rise will be enormous; (8) The only alternative to such a disaster is to immediately and sharply reduce CO2 emissions (reducing emissions in 2050 by 80 % compared to today's rate) and continue further reductions after 2050; (9) Even with such draconian CO2 reductions, the CO2 concentration is likely to reach at least 450 to 500 ppm by 2100 resulting in significant damage to humanity; (10) Such reductions in CO2 emissions are technically feasible and economically affordable while providing adequate energy to a growing world population that is increasingly industriaclimate of the 19th century was ideal and may be taken as a standard to compare against any current climate; (5) global climate models, while still not perfect, are good enough to indicate that continued use of fossil fuels at projected rates in the 21st century will cause the CO2 concentration to rise to a high level by 2100 (possibly 700 to 900 ppm); (6) The global average temperature under this condition will rise more than 3 °C from the late 19th century ideal; (7) The negative impact on humanity of such a rise will be enormous; (8) The only alternative to such a disaster is to immediately and sharply reduce CO2 emissions (reducing emissions in 2050 by 80 % compared to today's rate) and continue further reductions after 2050; (9) Even with such draconian CO2 reductions, the CO2 concentration is likely to reach at least 450 to 500 ppm by 2100 resulting in significant damage to humanity; (10) Such reductions in CO2 emissions are technically feasible and economically affordable while providing adequate energy to a growing world population that is increasingly industriaclimate; (5) global climate models, while still not perfect, are good enough to indicate that continued use of fossil fuels at projected rates in the 21st century will cause the CO2 concentration to rise to a high level by 2100 (possibly 700 to 900 ppm); (6) The global average temperature under this condition will rise more than 3 °C from the late 19th century ideal; (7) The negative impact on humanity of such a rise will be enormous; (8) The only alternative to such a disaster is to immediately and sharply reduce CO2 emissions (reducing emissions in 2050 by 80 % compared to today's rate) and continue further reductions after 2050; (9) Even with such draconian CO2 reductions, the CO2 concentration is likely to reach at least 450 to 500 ppm by 2100 resulting in significant damage to humanity; (10) Such reductions in CO2 emissions are technically feasible and economically affordable while providing adequate energy to a growing world population that is increasingly industriaclimate models, while still not perfect, are good enough to indicate that continued use of fossil fuels at projected rates in the 21st century will cause the CO2 concentration to rise to a high level by 2100 (possibly 700 to 900 ppm); (6) The global average temperature under this condition will rise more than 3 °C from the late 19th century ideal; (7) The negative impact on humanity of such a rise will be enormous; (8) The only alternative to such a disaster is to immediately and sharply reduce CO2 emissions (reducing emissions in 2050 by 80 % compared to today's rate) and continue further reductions after 2050; (9) Even with such draconian CO2 reductions, the CO2 concentration is likely to reach at least 450 to 500 ppm by 2100 resulting in significant damage to humanity; (10) Such reductions in CO2 emissions are technically feasible and economically affordable while providing adequate energy to a growing world population that is increasingly industrializing.

However, the mighty creature overhead, along with all its cousins, is too small to show up in even the biggest and grandest global climate models.

It should be clear that this great and constant roar of atmospheric air conditioning is an important part of the global energy budget should figure significantly into any model of the global climate however the mighty creature overhead, along with all his cousins, is too small to show up in even the biggest and grandest global climate models.»

This work looked at climate model data to confirm that sea - surface temperature patterns can be used as an indicator of Amoc's strength and revealing that it has been weakening even more rapidly since 1950 in response to recent global warming.

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?

I have too much respect for Allison to get into a spitting match with him over something that there is simply too little data to positively determine, too much corruption and money involved for those who support that mankind can affect and control global weather to any significant amount all while ignoring so many other factors such as solar winds, Sun spot activity and even the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, which is never a part of any of the seriously flawed climate models.

Back in the olden days, in the days when they had the sort of «stable» climate we are all now expected to aspire to, long before anyone had thunk up global warming or anything, they used to amuse themselves of an evening by singing about how natural variability is always going to happen whether the models be right or wrong.

This forecast also suggests global temperatures over the next five years are likely to be well within, or even in the upper half, of the range of warming expected by the CMIP5 models, as used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Despite the widely recognized prominence of water vapour and clouds in models of greenhouse forcing, a new paper published in Climate Dynamics fails to even identify either factor as a contributor to global temperature changes during the 1984 - 2005 period.

Study: Long - term warming equivalent to 10 °C per century could be sufficient to trigger compost - bomb instability in drying organic soils Wiley: First generation climate — carbon cycle models suggest that climate change will suppress carbon accumulation in soils, and could even lead to a net loss of global soil carbon over the next century.

After all, even the EPA's own lawyers, non-scientist professional bureaucratic infighters that they are, seem to recognize that if Mother Nature could, in pre-industrial times, raise the earth's global mean temperature to levels approaching today's levels — but without the benefit of having that additional 100 ppm of atmospheric CO2 with which to force the increase — then key parts of current AGW theory can be called into question, even the climate prediction models.

Wiley: First generation climate — carbon cycle models suggest that climate change will suppress carbon accumulation in soils, and could even lead to a net loss of global soil carbon over the next century.

Even on the global scale, the annual, global - averaged radiative forcing predicted by the models is significantly greater than has been observed based on the accumulation of Joules in the climate system.

Even just acknowledging more openly the incredible magnitude of the deep structural uncertainties that are involved in climate - change analysis — and explaining better to policymakers that the artificial crispness conveyed by conventional IAM - based CBAs [Integrated Assessment Model — Cost Benefit Analyses] here is especially and unusually misleading compared with more ordinary non-climate-change CBA situations — might go a long way toward elevating the level of public discourse concerning what to do about global warming.

Recent multi model estimates based on different CMIP3 climate scenarios and different dynamic global vegetation models predict a moderate risk of tropical forest reduction in South America and even lower risk for African and Asian tropical forests (see also Section 12.5.5.6)(Gumpenberger et al., 2010; Huntingford et al., 2013).»

But don't you think there are some underlying patterns in the global climate that can be understood even with greatly simplified models?

Edward A. Barkley (160)-- Here is a decadal climate model for you: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/03/unforced-variations-3/comment-page-12/#comment-168530 in which I even venture a prediction of the global average temperature for the 2010s.

RealClimate is wonderful, and an excellent source of reliable information.As I've said before, methane is an extremely dangerous component to global warming.Comment # 20 is correct.There is a sharp melting point to frozen methane.A huge increase in the release of methane could happen within the next 50 years.At what point in the Earth's temperature rise and the rise of co2 would a huge methane melt occur?No one has answered that definitive issue.If I ask you all at what point would huge amounts of extra methane start melting, i.e at what temperature rise of the ocean near the Artic methane ice deposits would the methane melt, or at what point in the rise of co2 concentrations in the atmosphere would the methane melt, I believe that no one could currently tell me the actual answer as to where the sharp melting point exists.Of course, once that tipping point has been reached, and billions of tons of methane outgass from what had been locked stores of methane, locked away for an eternity, it is exactly the same as the burning of stored fossil fuels which have been stored for an eternity as well.And even though methane does not have as long a life as co2, while it is around in the air it can cause other tipping points, i.e. permafrost melting, to arrive much sooner.I will reiterate what I've said before on this and other sites.Methane is a hugely underreported, underestimated risk.How about RealClimate attempts to model exactly what would happen to other tipping points, such as the melting permafrost, if indeed a huge increase in the melting of the methal hydrate ice WERE to occur within the next 50 years.My amateur guess is that the huge, albeit temporary, increase in methane over even three or four decades might push other relevent tipping points to arrive much, much, sooner than they normally would, thereby vastly incresing negative feedback mechanisms.We KNOW that quick, huge, changes occured in the Earth's climate in the past.See other relevent posts in the past from Realclimate.Climate often does not change slowly, but undergoes huge, quick, changes periodically, due to negative feedbacks accumulating, and tipping the climate to a quick change.Why should the danger from huge potential methane releases be vievwed with any less trepidation?

The models heavily relied upon by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had not projected this multidecadal stasis in «global warming»; nor (until trained ex post facto) the fall in TS from 1940 - 1975; nor 50 years» cooling in Antarctica (Doran et al., 2002) and the Arctic (Soon, 2005); nor the absence of ocean warming since 2003 (Lyman et al., 2006; Gouretski & Koltermann, 2007); nor the onset, duration, or intensity of the Madden - Julian intraseasonal oscillation, the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation in the tropical stratosphere, El Nino / La Nina oscillations, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, or the Pacific Decadal Oscillation that has recently transited from its warming to its cooling phase (oceanic oscillations which, on their own, may account for all of the observed warmings and coolings over the past half - century: Tsoniset al., 2007); nor the magnitude nor duration of multi-century events such as the Mediaeval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age; nor the cessation since 2000 of the previously - observed growth in atmospheric methane concentration (IPCC, 2007); nor the active 2004 hurricane season; nor the inactive subsequent seasons; nor the UK flooding of 2007 (the Met Office had forecast a summer of prolonged droughts only six weeks previously); nor the solar Grand Maximum of the past 70 years, during which the Sun was more active, for longer, than at almost any similar period in the past 11,400 years (Hathaway, 2004; Solankiet al., 2005); nor the consequent surface «global warming» on Mars, Jupiter, Neptune's largest moon, and even distant Pluto; nor the eerily - continuing 2006 solar minimum; nor the consequent, precipitate decline of ~ 0.8 °C in TS from January 2007 to May 2008 that has canceled out almost all of the observed warming of the 20th century.

That, the UN official claimed, is «very detrimental» to the fight against alleged global warming, which even alarmists have now been forced to admit has been on «pause» for 17 years in defiance of all 73 UN «climate» models.

Instead of publicly expressing their views, a group of parliamentarians said skeptics should parrot the imploding official narrative: The notion that global warming, which even leading alarmists admit has been on «pause» for 17 years in defiance of every UN climate model, is caused by human activities and requires planetary carbon taxes and more government control.