Sentences with phrase «modeling about future climate change»

Not exact matches

Oppenheimer and his co-authors use a technique known as «structured expert judgment» to put an actual value on the uncertainty that scientists studying climate change have about a particular model's prediction of future events such as sea - level rise.

Of the many inane arguments that are made against taking action on climate change, perhaps the most fatuous is that the projections climate models offer about the future are too uncertain to justify taking steps that might inconvenience us in the present.

The results could lead to better predictive models to inform future decisions about energy production and use, and a better understanding of changes in the climate.

All in all the science of hurricanes does appear to be much more fun and interesting than the average climate change issue, as there is a debate, a «fight» between different hypothesis, predictions compared to near - future observations, and all that does not always get pre-eminence in the exchanges about models.

Government climate models that had predicted climatic changes haven't at all fit the facts of how the climate has changed, but the government still wants to use what they say about future climate to make today's policy.

When we talk about future climate change, our discussion often stalls at the uncertainties inherent in scientists» statistical models and forecasts.

Of the many inane arguments that are made against taking action on climate change, perhaps the most fatuous is that the projections climate models offer about the future are too uncertain to justify taking steps that might inconvenience us in the present.

Based on nothing more than dubious computer models, these people pretend to know what the future holds (climate change of such magnitude that it's worth worrying about).

Yet even though I have significant experience and knowledge about future climate change policy challenges, the CBAT model helps me visualize the significance of certain policy options facing the world.

People who've been following the debate about global warming closely will be aware that the economic modelling used in projections of future climate change by the IPCC has been severely criticised by former Australian Statistician Ian Castles and former OECD chief economist David Henderson.

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.

As the interpretation of infinity in economic climate models is essentially a debate about how to deal with the threat of extinction, Mr Weitzman's argument depends heavily on a judgement about the value of life... A lack of reliable data exacerbates the profound methodological and philosophical difficulties faced by climate change economists... The United Nations conference in Paris this December offers a chance to take appropriate steps to protect future generations from this risk... http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2015/07/climate-change (MOST COMMENTING ARE NOT AT ALL IMPRESSED)

It also presents a new set of estimates of the uncertainties about future climate change and compares the results will those of other integrated assessment models.

Firstly, there is uncertainty about the future levels of greenhouse gas emissions driving climate change [34] and considerable uncertainty in modeling how this will affect other aspects of climate such as local rainfall or temperatures.

It is intellectually dishonest to devote several pages to cherry - picking studies that disagree with the IPCC consensus on net health effects because you don't like its scientific conclusion, while then devoting several pages to hiding behind [a misstatement of] the U.N. consensus on sea level rise because you know a lot reasonable people think the U.N. wildly underestimated the upper end of the range and you want to attack Al Gore for worrying about 20 - foot sea level rise.On this blog, I have tried to be clear what I believe with my earlier three - part series: Since sea level, arctic ice, and most other climate change indicators have been changing faster than most IPCC models projected and since the IPCC neglects key amplifying carbon cycle feedbacks, the IPCC reports almost certainly underestimate future climate impacts.

Moreover, most of the uncertainty in the ECS value results from climate model speculation about climate changes that might occur far into the future, not in the next 300 years!

We run climate models on people's home computers to help answer questions about how climate change is affecting our world, now and in the future — Sign up now and help us predict the climate.

Asked by CNSNews about the Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Easterbrook said they «ignored all the data I gave them... every time I say something about the projection of climate into the future based on real data, they come out with some [computer] modeled data that says this is just a temporary pause... I am absolutely dumfounded by the totally absurd and stupid things said every day by people who are purportedly scientists that make no sense whatsoeClimate Change (IPCC), Easterbrook said they «ignored all the data I gave them... every time I say something about the projection of climate into the future based on real data, they come out with some [computer] modeled data that says this is just a temporary pause... I am absolutely dumfounded by the totally absurd and stupid things said every day by people who are purportedly scientists that make no sense whatsoeclimate into the future based on real data, they come out with some [computer] modeled data that says this is just a temporary pause... I am absolutely dumfounded by the totally absurd and stupid things said every day by people who are purportedly scientists that make no sense whatsoever....

Three - dimensional (3D) planetary general circulation models (GCMs) derived from the models that we use to project 21st Century changes in Earth's climate can now be used to address outstanding questions about how Earth became and remained habitable despite wide swings in solar radiation, atmospheric chemistry, and other climate forcings; whether these different eras of habitability manifest themselves in signals that might be detected from a great distance; whether and how planets such as Mars and Venus were habitable in the past; how common habitable exoplanets might be; and how we might best answer this question with future observations.

This describes what past climates can reveal about the quality of models that predict future change.

It's a finding that should be reflected in current climate models to help scientists make more accurate predictions about future Greenland melt — and could become even more important in the coming years if cloud cover over the ice sheet were to increase as a result of climate change.