Sentences with phrase «model warming predictions»

Or maybe, «As shown in Figures 1.4 and 1.5, since the end of the 1992 Pinatubo volcano, models have predicted a steady upward trend in global average temperatures, but the observed series have been comparatively trendless, and thus the range of model warming predictions since the early 1990s can be seen to have been biased towards more warming than was subsequently observed.»

Not exact matches

Any carbon dioxide emissions that may contribute to global warming — and recent climate modelling puts earlier scary predictions into question — have plateaued.

Revelations is clearly very accurate, clearly agreeing with moden science computer models regarding global warming predictions, what will happen when a large asteroid strikes (note the word «when») and many other things unknown to science prior to the 21st Century.

Look up the warm superconductor experiements back in 2009 in the Netherlands, which has confirmed predictions made by that model.

By improving the understanding of how much radiation CO2 absorbs, uncertainties in modelling climate change will be reduced and more accurate predictions can be made about how much Earth is likely to warm over the next few decades.

Some climate change deniers have taken encouragement from the pause, saying they show warming predictions are flawed, but Mann, a co-author on the study, notes that «there have been various explanations for why [the slowdown is happening], none of which involve climate models being fundamentally wrong.»

The prediction, based on computer modeling of published studies, blames warming of the planet's oceans (ScienceNOW, 22 January, 2001).

As can be seen your graph, our climate models make a wide range of predictions (perhaps 0.5 - 5 degC, a 10-fold uncertainty) about how much «committed warming» will occur in the future under any stabilization scenario, so we don't seem to have a decent understanding of these processes.

Are there any web sites that provides the mathmatical model calculations for Global Warming predictions?

Remember also that (IIRC) one of the predictions of climate models is that warming is likely to result in more extremes of weather?

By working on the still - not - fully - cracked nut of estimating changes in hurricane frequency and intensity in a warming climate, Gabe and his colleagues ended up with a modeling system with seasonal skill in regional hurricane prediction.

In no models or predictions of future warming scenarios does the Antarctic ice mass melt to any significant extent.

After a general trashing of various things including surface observations and climate models, he admitted that his prediction for the globally - averaged warming (of ~ 1.5 C by 2100) is within the IPCC range... albeit at the low end.

In fact, this is a good example of climate models making a prediction (warmer nights), and then having the prediction born out by the data.

The kinder, gentler model from the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in the United Kingdom estimated a wetter, warmer future: Rainfall may increase 20 percent to 25 percent, mean annual temperatures could increase 2 degrees Fahrenheit by 2030 and 4 degrees by 2100.

The anthropogenic global warming argument does not hinge on the paleo reconstructions but on model predictions.

After a general trashing of various things including surface observations and climate models, he admitted that his prediction for the globally - averaged warming (of ~ 1.5 C by 2100) is within the IPCC range... albeit at the low end.

So if you just took the relative change since 1999, not the absolute numbers as compared to the red curve, their new model would predict the same warming as a standard scenario run (i.e. the black one), which would hardly have been a reason to go to the worldwide media with a «pause in warming» prediction.

Models actually predict that the interior of the ice sheets should gain mass because of the increased snowfall that goes along with warmer temperatures, and recent observations actually agree with those predictions.

Are there any web sites that provides the mathmatical model calculations for Global Warming predictions?

Is this something that should lead us to doubt model predictions of global warming?

Three IPCC climate models, recent NASA Aqua satellite data, and a simple 3 - layer climate model are used together to demonstrate that the IPCC climate models are far too sensitive, resulting in their prediction of too much global warming in response to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.

While RealClimate has called into question the soundness of the paper's quite narrow conclusions of discrepancy between model predictions and measurements of the relative rate of warming of different levels of the atmosphere over the tropics, this paper is being touted by the deniers as showing that the models are wrong to predict any warming at all, and that predictions of future warming and climate change can be entirely discounted.

Dr. Swanson: Another question — This prediction of a pause in the warming seems somewhat similar to the prediction of Keenlyside et al., although, as I understand it, theirs is based simply on a direct model prediction (with an attempt, whether successful or not, to use realistic initial conditions in initializing their model).

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.

But the potentially severe impacts of a quickly warming world up the ante; therefore, though the model predictions have significant error bars, a risk management perspective demands that significant mitigations steps be taken immediately.

Also, if we say we know what's causing current warming there's a lot of work to be done explaining model failure on predictions.

Fig. 2 shows predictions with a simple model that predicts the number of tropical cyclones (NTC and n) in the North Atlantic based on the area of warm sea surface (A) and the NINO3.4 index.

In no models or predictions of future warming scenarios does the Antarctic ice mass melt to any significant extent.

I also agree that model predictions of 0.2 C surface warming per decade were clearly inaccurate, but on the larger question of climate trends, they were probably not very far off.

T 54: if we say we know what's causing current warming there's a lot of work to be done explaining model failure on predictions.

* «Princeton physicist Will Happer's WSJ op - ed: «Global warming models are wrong again»: The former federal official calls climate's «observed response» to more CO2 «not in good agreement with model predictions.»»

And you might recall that his March 27 Wall Street Journal op - ed «Global warming models are wrong again» called the climate's «observed response» to more CO2 «not in good agreement with model predictions.»

Arctic sea ice has reached record lows this winter around Greenland and elsewhere, following the predictions of remarkably accurate models based on global warming.

The scientistsâ $ ™ predictions also undermine the standard climate computer models, which assert that the warming of the Earth since 1900 has been driven solely by man - made greenhouse gas emissions and will continue as long as carbon dioxide levels rise.

These phases, which last 30 years, giving a 60 - year cycle, must be carefully allowed for: otherwise the error made by many early models would arise: they based their predictions on the warming rate from 1976 - 2001, a period wholly within a warming phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

In light of this prediction and global climate model forecasts for continued high - latitude warming, the ice sheet mass budget deficit is likely to continue to grow in the coming decades.

Nevertheless, the IPCC appears to be set to conclude that warming in the near future will resume in accord with climate model predictions.

In reality, when we compare apples to apples — El Niño years to El Niño years — we've seen more than 0.3 °C global surface warming over the past 18 years, which is in line with climate model predictions.

These systems likely contribute to an observed regional trend of increasing extreme rainfall, and poor prediction of them likely contributes to a warm, dry bias in climate models downstream of the Sierras de Córdoba in a key agricultural region.

Climate alarmism is not based on empirical observation; rather, it is entirely predicated on computer models that are manipulated to generate predictions of significant global warming as a result of increased concentrations of CO2.

And, as Edim has suggested, if the real life «physics» tells us that this «lack of warming» continues for another 15 years despite unabated human GHG emissions, we may have to toss those model predictions, and the «agenda driven physics» that created them, into the trash.

Comparing model predictions of GHG - induced warming with recent natural temperature fluctuations also indicates the potential scale of man - made climate change.Early modelling experiments focused on the total long - term change resulting from a doubling of carbon dioxide (CO2) levels.

Then (2004) he saw that his model predictions on warming were not happening (they were exaggerated by 2:1), so he used «circular logic» to come up with the «hidden in the pipeline» postulation.

Kevin Hamilton, who co-authored the report, warns: «If our model results prove to be representative of the real global climate, then climate is actually more sensitive to perturbations by greenhouse gases than current global models predict, and even the highest warming predictions would underestimate the real change we could see.»

Natural variability makes it difficult to invalidate climate models that make predictions disagree with observations, such as amplification of warming in the upper tropical troposphere.

Writing up their findings in the Journal of Climate, the scientists have noted that the «greatest weakness» of most climate prediction models, namely their comprehension of the significance of clouds, may be in «the one aspect that is most crucial for predicting the magnitude of global warming».

Well since the upward trend was well established, and his whole «CO2 causes global warming» theory would be falsified by any other result (constant or decreasing temperatures) it is hardly surprising that Hansen's models would produce predictions of increasing temperature.

Emission scenarios and model predictions may overstate the risk, but they are equally likely to underestimate it.There is some evidence that this warming has already begun.

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?