Sentences with phrase «models predicting future warming»

Page 11 of the brief begins, «As shown below, computer models predicting future warming must overestimate warming, because they generally use an incorrect increase in carbon dioxide concentration of 1 % per year.»

Not exact matches

«The result is not a surprise, but if you look at the global climate models that have been used to analyze what the planet looked like 20,000 years ago — the same models used to predict global warming in the future — they are doing, on average, a very good job reproducing how cold it was in Antarctica,» said first author Kurt Cuffey, a glaciologist at the University of California, Berkeley, and professor of geography and of earth and planetary sciences.

Climate models, it says, «can neither confirm that global warming is occurring now, or predict future climate changes», and yet «have been used to frame the debate».

Data from BOREAS allows researchers to estimate how much carbon dioxide trees pull out of the atmosphere and store within their structures, a value used in some models to predict the role of forests in a future, warmer world.

These models can then be mapped against climate forecasts to predict how phenology could shift in the future, painting a picture of landscapes in a world of warmer temperatures, altered precipitation and humidity, and changes in cloud cover.

Models predict how much the world will warm depending on how much we emit in future.

The models used to predict future global warming can accurately map past climate changes.

They do, however, raise serious questions about the validity of climate models (which are, of course, used to predict future warming and are used to set public policy and sway public opinion) and how much we are actually warming.

There are really two other * scientific * ways to predict future global warming trends beside computer models.

As we've said many times, evidence continues to show weaknesses in climate models used to predict future warming.

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).

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.

The scientific community has also known for some time that the predicted future global warming in most climate models (more than 2 degrees C.) would probably be well above the long - term average temperature present at any time during the Holocene.

This model or hypothesis has failed to demonstrate past warming, failed to predict current warming, and because of the nature of the Earth system, can not predict the future beyond forecasting in a limited frame of reference in a semi-stable system (i.e. temperature swings of 10, 20, 30 or more degrees F in minutes, hours, and days).

In the future, Earth's plants should be able to successfully adjust their physiology to accommodate a warming of the magnitude and rate - of - rise that is typically predicted by climate models to accompany the projected future increase in the air's CO2 content.

Despite 700 years of these natural extreme weather swings, Stanford's Noah Diffenbaugh blames recent swings on global warming stating, «This is exactly what state - of - the - art climate models predicted should have happened, and what those models project to intensify in the future as global warming continues.»

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.

The best that can be said for the catastrophist side is that there is at least some evidence that future warming or changes in sea level or ocean chemistry could be catastrophic, even though this evidence is far from conclusive and is actively contradicting most models that predict catastrophe at present.

Although there is a general consensus among models that rising CO2 will drive warming and continued ice melt into the future, IPCC models failed to predict the current level of rapid sea ice reduction.

As we've said many times, evidence continues to show weaknesses in climate models used to predict future warming.

At one time, the hubris of global warming scientists led them to believe their climate models could explain / predict the future ENSO variations.

We are helping you to understand that there are other plausible explanations for global warming, and the assumption that it is due to CO2 is based only on opinionated papers hand - waved through the peer review process by friendly referees [while skeptical papers rarely see the light of day], and by computer model outputs, which are invariably unable to predict the future climate, or even today's climate with all available past data as the input.

What is more, there are concerns that such damages may increase in the future if temperatures rise as predicted by global climate models in response to CO2 - induced global warming.

The models used to predict future global warming can accurately map past climate changes.

The Arctic temperature data do not support the models predicting that there will be a critical future warming of the climate because of an increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

«a slowdown in the MOC is predicted by our model (and others) for a future world, partly as a function of ocean warming and partly as a function of increased freshening from ice melt and increased rainfall.

«the climate models that predict substantial future warming are failing miserably to replicate real - world temperatures».

«Stakeholders who are convinced that future anthropogenic warming will be slower than current models predict will be reassured that the policy will «bite» correspondingly more slowly,» the researchers write, «while the converse is also true for those concerned about unexpectedly rapid warming in the future.»

Two prominent U.S. Government scientists made two separate admissions questioning the reliability of climate models used to predict warming decades and hundreds of years into the future.

Only continued failure of the models to accurately predict future warming over the next couple of decades will end this nonsense.

So he thinks that models that weren't dealing with long - term ocean sequestration of heat, but somehow accidentally predicted the pause, have relevance to claims about future warming if the ocean were involved in a way that wasn't in the models?

Nonetheless instead of providing a greater historical framework to critique natural cycles that last 60 to 200 years, they promoted untested speculation and simply reported that all the models predict more fires due to CO2 warming in the future.

Hence predicted future atmospheric CO2 concentrations are therefore higher (and consequently the climate warmer) than in models that do not include these couplings.

An equally important idea that can't be ruled out on current data: the near future is not the mirror image of the recent past: the effect of the next doubling of CO2 can not be predicted from the modeling results based on assuming some CO2 - caused warming to date.

However, the climate projections that are incorporated in Tol's economic model are likely wrong — they predict too much warming from future carbon dioxide emissions.

The impact on our «understanding and attributing climate change» is major, of course: if up to 50 % of past warming can be attributed to solar forcing (as many solar studies have concluded) then the whole model - predicted (2xCO2) climate sensitivity estimates are in serious question and, with these, all the projections for future climate change caused by AGW.

The models have been consistently predicting future warming, and have been right.

Huss and his colleagues plan to next apply their model to predicting how the thousands of glaciers will react to future global warming.

«The models have come to predict a high level of future warming, and how they claim that it is all caused by CO2.

(4) So necessarily, about two - thirds of the models» predicted future warming comes from factors that are not understood.

Forecasts of future ice sheet behavior appear even more uncertain: Under the same high — global warming scenario, eight ice sheet models predicted anywhere between 0 and 27 cm of sea level rise in 2100 from Greenland melt.

New paper explains inherent flaws of computer models predicting future climate change London, 21 February: Claims that the planet is threatened by man - made global warming are based on science that is based on inadequate computer modelling.

It is noteworthy that models in general predict the greatest amounts of future warming, while observationally - based studies, often about interglacial - glacial transitions, or differences between geological eras, tend to come up with less warming.

Willis: «In addition, we have evidence that the climate models, whose programmers do think it is a boundary problem, can't predict 20 years out, they've been quite bad at projecting the future ever since climate stopped warming.