Sentences with phrase «majority of the climate model»

It was my understanding that the vast majority of climate models were in agreement.

What has always concerned me about the majority of the climate models are reliance on prior climatology and not looking for new patterns.

Indeed, the majority of climate models suggest global warming will produce a more positive phase of the NAM during this century, although the models, and the modeling community, are not in complete agreement.

Meaning yes to defunding the majority of climate models.

From the observed behavior, he was able to determine the climate sensitivity, and found it to be substantially less than that in the vast majority of the climate models.

Not exact matches

«We have to think of religious identity as the central mental model and framework and belief system by which many Americans, if not a majority of Americans, are going to come to understand climate change,» he said.

While some models show that the effects of climate change could potentially benefit water resources in Asia, the majority point in the opposite direction.

This projection is unlike what has been predicted as a drying period by the majority of current climate models.

The study brings together results from the majority of the world's leading climate models.

Finally, since I feel compelled to complete the trifecta, there's this paper («Understanding Public Complacency About Climate Change: Adults» mental models of climate change violate conservation of matter «-RRB- finding that a substantial majority of intelligent humans (the group studied was MIT grad students) have no grasp of stock anClimate Change: Adults» mental models of climate change violate conservation of matter «-RRB- finding that a substantial majority of intelligent humans (the group studied was MIT grad students) have no grasp of stock anclimate change violate conservation of matter «-RRB- finding that a substantial majority of intelligent humans (the group studied was MIT grad students) have no grasp of stock and flow.

The fact that I can point to the majority of models not predicting this fast of a decline, and you can point out a few that say that it might have started by now and it hasn't, totally ignores the fact that either way, sea ice is diminishing and that is consistent with accumulating heat in the Earth's climate system.

These observations, together with computer model simulations and historical climate reconstructions from ice cores, ocean sediments and tree rings all provide strong evidence that the majority of the warming over the past century is a result of human activities.

Scientists proposing catastrophic majority anthropogenic global warming models (a.k.a. «Climate change») bear the burden of proof of providing clear robust evidence supporting validated model predictions of anthropogenic warming with strong significant differences from this climatic null hypothesis.

The society has officially taken a position many of us AMS members do not agree with... Instead of organizing meetings with free and open debates on the basic physics and the likelihood of AGW induced climate changes, the leaders of the society... have chosen to fully trust the climate models and deliberately avoid open debate and discussion... My interaction (over the years) with a broad segment of AMS members... have indicated that a majority of them do not agree that humans are the primary cause of global warming.»

Based on observational data climate sensitivity is clearly rather small and much smaller that the majority of models.»

You ask some great questions, and the answers are the subject of much ongoing research as the majority (but not all) of the climate models looking at the decline in Arctic sea ice from anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing did not forsee the extremely rapid decline we've seen.

Mass - balance modelling of all glaciers individually is not practical because no detailed description exists for the great majority of them, and because local climate data are not available; even regional climate models do not have sufficient resolution, while downscaling methods can not generally be used because local climate measurements have not been made (see Section 10.7).

How exactly are you proving your point when you admit (emphasis mine)... «yes, the temperature moved FIRST» and you make hidden conciliatory statements like... «for the MAJORITY of that time» and then you freely admit... «CO2 did not trigger the warmings» and then you rely on the lamest of hollow arguments... «according to climate THEORY and model EXPERIMENTS» and then you stumble back to close with complete opinion and conjecture... «we may well» and «The likely candidates» Anyone with a brain will read your post and laugh - it's pathetic and you've actually done nothing but strengthen the skeptics argument.

As far as the vast majority of skeptics is concerned, we are in agreement with Meres: The models are wrong on many levels and can not predict future climate.

What common sense tells us, Fan...... is that despite the growing disparity between models and what robust measuremrents we do have, the overwhelming majority of government - funded climate scientists endorse the alarmist worldview tells because that is what benefits their paymaster and ideological agenda.

The vast majority of hard - science research scientists are now coming to the belief that the climate models used by the UN's IPCC and major climate agencies are seriously in error, based on this latest research and empirical evidence.

While Zhang et al. (2007) concluded globally that they had detected an anthropogenic influence on the overall latitudinal patterns of precipitation trends (that is, the climate model trends were of the same sign as the observed trends), in the latitude band that includes the majority of the United States population a mismatch between model projections and precipitation trends was found (Figure 1).

These results imply that high ECS and TCR values derived from a majority of CMIP5 climate models are inconsistent with observed warming during the historical period.

Past climate models, as judged by the performance of the majority of Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 3 (CMIP3) simulations used in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, underestimated the observed linear trend in Arctic sea ice loss (Stroeve et al., 2007).

The most likely scenario is that suggested by the climate model in Meehl (2011) & Meehl (2013)- the majority of this slowing of surface temperatures is due to natural variabilty (deep ocean warming) superimposed atop a long - term warming trend (greenhouse gas - induced warming of the surface ocean).

The vast majority of recent climate research simply assumes the precise correctness of the 20th century mean temperature profile generated by these wonky models.

This is no different from the majority of papers in climate science which produce a model to show what will happen if the model assumptions prove to be correct and then claim that the model shows their assumptions are correct.

Contrary to Schlesinger's result, the majority of state - of - the - art four - dimensional «general circulation models» (GCMs)- the kind used in the Trenberth and Fasullo study - estimate the climate sensitivity is closer to 3 degrees C.

A large majority of these models calculated by different PCs produce very similar climates.

For a long time the vast majority of climate scientists never modeled the impacts of high CO2 concentrations because they assumed humanity would never be so self - destructive as to allow them to occur.