Sentences with phrase «for prediction of future climate»

Computer models are the essential tool for prediction of future climate.

The uncertainty in aerosol forcing looks unsettling, but this is a good example of the case where one needs to ask: What are the consequences of this uncertainty for our predictions of future climate?

«This research contributes to our knowledge of climate change and can inform models used for predictions of future climate change.»

f) Useful analytical tools for use in Climate Science yet unfit for predictions of the future climate?

Not exact matches

On the broader implications of the findings and outlook, Dr Hossaini said: «Ozone is an important climate gas and changes to its abundance, including due to the increasing influence of dichloromethane, could be relevant for refining future climate predictions.

«And hence it provides a baseline for predictions on how that part of the climate system may behave in the future.»

To get some idea of what climate change will likely mean for the reefs, the World Heritage Centre asked coral experts at NOAA and elsewhere to produce what they claim is a first of its kind study «that scientifically quantifies the scale of the issue, makes a prediction of where the future lies, and indicates effects up to the level of individual sites,» says Fanny Douvere, marine program coordinator at the center.

But he is hopeful for the future of satellite - based prediction — even as it becomes a greater necessity in a changing climate and globalized world.

By looking at the climate changes that took place thousands of years ago, we can improve predictions for future climate.

The finding suggests that future climate simulations, unlike current ones, should account for the effects of these algae when making predictions about glacial melt.

«A challenge for the coming years is to use these kinds of climate models to be able to make predictions about populations and ecosystems in the future.

«The overall predictions for the future of the area is of a more maritime climate, particularly warmer temperatures and increased precipitation during winter,» Høye says.

«In the face of natural variability and complexity, the consequences of change in any single factor, for example greenhouse gas emissions, can not readily be isolated, and prediction becomes difficult... Scientific uncertainties continue to limit our ability to make objective, quantitative determinations regarding the human role in recent climate change, or the degree and consequence of future change.»

The extra data spanning many thousands of years that this study uncovers will go a long way to matching model projections with past observations, helping scientists identify the most accurate models for making predictions of future climate change.

A warning to the skeptics — there are very obvious trends for most of the parameters, which accord with climate model predictions for a hotter drier future.

Since this goes along with an increasing greenhouse effect and a further global warming, a better understanding of the carbon cycle is of great importance for all future climate change predictions.

For the future, data assimilation might help us to keep the state of a climate model closer to the real world's, allowing us to improve predictions on seasonal and decadal time scales.

(Paper abstract) Climate models may underestimate heat stored in ground General circulation models (GCMs), the primary tool for estimating the magnitude of future climate change, rely on realistic inputs to generate accurate prediClimate models may underestimate heat stored in ground General circulation models (GCMs), the primary tool for estimating the magnitude of future climate change, rely on realistic inputs to generate accurate prediclimate change, rely on realistic inputs to generate accurate predictions.

Similarly, it can be useful to benchmark climate models against the observed record to establish some sort of reasonable initial state for future predictions.

There has been no shortage of predictions for how the future will look as the climate changes.

I suspect that it looked OK in your view or you didn't check; «the paper i cited talks of the hiatus in global temperatures for the past 20 years or so, that the Little Ice Age was global in extent, and that climate models can not account for the observations we already have let alone make adequate predictions about what will happen in the future.

There are many who will not like this recent paper published in Nature Communications on principle as it talks of the hiatus in global temperatures for the past 20 years or so, that the Little Ice Age was global in extent, and that climate models can not account for the observations we already have let alone make adequate predictions about what will happen in the future.

Clearly, the causes of climate change over the last millennium have very little to do with attribution of modern warming, or for future prediction.

the lack of a hotspot demonstrates that they are not correctly capturing the physics of the earth's climate and can not be relied upon for accurate predictions of future climate.

Tian W. and M.P. Chipperfield, 2004: A New Coupled Chemistry - Climate Model for the Stratosphere: The Importance of Coupling for Future O3 - Climate Predictions Q.J. Roy.

Just as a hypothetical example: If climate scientist will tell me that recent pause in global warming is due to the effect of an inactive sun (which is the reality as reported by following) http://www.spaceweather.com and that they will go back and improve their models to account for this, then I would be more inclined to believe their other claims... Instead the IPCC doubles down on their predictions and claim the future effects will be worst than they originally thought?

Regarding (3), I've never actually encountered a CAGW movement supporter who actually seemed personally scared of the climate predictions, like personally moving away from the coast specifically because of believed future sea level rise or moving further north for that reason.

First, the computer climate models on which predictions of rapid warming from enhanced atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration are based «run hot,» simulating two to three times the warming actually observed over relevant periods — during which non-anthropogenic causes probably accounted for some and could have accounted for all the observed warming — and therefore provide no rational basis for predicting future GAT.

What happen if more scientist had even more confidence in the future prediction of climate - it can be a win for organization which has been trying to do this for decades.

For the near future the uncertainty in climate prediction justifies choosing polices that guide us towards net negative emissions as quickly as possible and the stabilization of atmospheric greenhouse gases at levels significantly lower than today.

In deference to the unpredictable nature of attempting to forecast global climate (and as an attempt to avoid mistakes previously made) the panel was more cautious than it was in past reports in making predictions for the future.

Yet some kind of climate model is indispensable to make future predictions of the climate system and IPCC has identified several reasons for respect in the climate models including the fact that models are getting better in predicting what monitoring evidence is actually observing around the world in regard to temperature, ice and snow cover, droughts and floods, and sea level rise among other things.

This has significant implications for the future and indicates that the IPCC climate models were wrong in their prediction of global temperatures soaring 1 °F per decade for the rest of the century.

To equate climate models with «bad» science must be understood to be an attempt to undermine any scientific justification for climate change policies because models are needed to make predictions about the future states of complex systems.

The case studies reflect on the fact that, despite their remoteness and limited resources, many Small Island Developing States are now leading the world in their application of climate prediction services to strengthen their economies and develop a brighter, more hopeful future for their communities.

For a useful critique of model - starting - points which bear no relation to the real - world, see: D. Koutsoyiannis et al (2008) «On the credibility of climate predictions» in Hydrological Sciences 53 (4) August 2008 671-684, who conclude that the GCM models defy normal assessments of validity and should not be relied upon to predict future climate change.

• The readiness of the nation to predict and avoid public and occupational health problems caused by heat waves and severe storms • Characterization and quantification of relationships between climate variability, health outcomes, and the main determinants of vulnerability within and between populations • Development of reliable methods to connect climate - related changes in food systems and water supplies to health under different conditions • Prediction of future risks in response to climate change scenarios and of reductions in the baseline level of morbidity, mortality, or vulnerability • Identification of the available resources, limitations of, and potential actions by the current U.S. health care system to prevent, prepare for, and respond to climate - related health hazards and to build adaptive capacity among vulnerable segments of the U.S. population

The reason I wondered about a prediction, is that in the film they talk about the past climate changes, if they are so certain that their interpretation on past climate is correct for the past, then sureley a prediction for the future would be a good test of their interpretation.

«The large - scale winds would look better because the release of latent heat drives a lot of those winds, and climate sensitivity would be better constrained because not only is the base state highly dependent on convective parameterization but the model predictions for future climate change are also very sensitive to that as well.»

-- Muller believes humans are changing climate with CO2 emissions — humans have been responsible for «most» of a 0.4 C warming since 1957, almost none of the warming before then — IPCC is in trouble due to sloppy science, exaggerated predictions; chairman will have to resign — the «Climategate» mails were not «hacked» — they were «leaked» by an insider — due to «hide the decline» deception, Muller will not read any future papers by Michael Mann — there has been no increase in hurricanes or tornadoes due to global warming — automobiles are insignificant in overall picture — China is the major CO2 producer, considerably more than USA today — # 1 priority for China is growth of economy — global warming is not considered important — China CO2 efficiency (GDP per ton CO2) is around one - fourth of USA today, has much room for improvement — China growth will make per capita CO2 emissions at same level as USA today by year 2040 — if it is «not profitable» it is «not sustainable» — US energy future depends on shale gas for automobiles; hydrogen will not be a factor — nor will electric cars, due to high cost — Muller is upbeat on nuclear (this was recorded pre-Fukushima)-- there has been no warming in the USA — Muller was not convinced of Hansen's GISS temperature record; hopes BEST will provide a better record.

Several climate predictions for future impacts of increasing radiative forcing suggest warming in the eastern Pacific and a more variable ENSO system, with ~ 70 % chance of stronger and / or more frequent El Niño conditions, and a ~ 50 % chance of increased frequency in La Niñas (Fig 1; [20,21]-RRB-.

In this final section, I will try to make estimates of what subcap methane emissions may mean for future climate change; more as a speculative basis for discussion rather than an authoritative prediction.

This raises an interesting question, which is how should the IPCC (or anybody else for that matter) falsify hypothesis II and III, which although they are at least plausible, make no testable predictions, unlike hypothesis I. Has anybody made projections for future climate with an unambiguous statement of uncertainty that would allow the projections to be falisfied by the observations?

Joe's World March 16, 2012 at 7:08 am said: temp records / climate science can not predict weather events, nor should be used for prediction of any future events.

In an article on «the perils of confirmation bias,» published for the Global Warming Policy Foundation (a group firmly opposed to policies that counteract climate change), Ridley suggested that «governments should fund groups that intend to explore alternative hypotheses about the likely future of climate as well as those that explore the dangerous man - made climate change prediction.»

A rational public and private sector response to the threat of storm damage in a changing climate must therefore acknowledge scientific uncertainties that are likely to persist beyond the time at which decisions will need to be made, focus more on the risks and benefits of planning for the worst case scenarios, and recognize that the combination of societal trends and the most confident aspects of climate change predictions makes future economic impacts substantially more likely than does either one alone.

A small minority of predictions for future climate were in the cooling direction, these were outnumbered by predictions of no change and far more still that predicted warming.

How do we know that the models representing global or regional climate are sufficiently reliable for predictions of future conditions?

Correctly accounting for uncertainty, and accepting the possibility of extreme weather events that may be counterintuitive to current climate predictions, could reduce future vulnerability to unexpected weather disasters.»

Therefore, the AASC recommends that policies related to long - term climate not be based on particular predictions, but instead should focus on policy alternatives that make sense for a wide range of plausible climatic conditions regardless of future climate.