Sentences with phrase «most climate models assume»

A major scientific study conducted at the University of Reading on the interactions between aerosols and clouds is much weaker than most climate models assume, meaning the planet could warm way less than predicted.

Previously, most climate models assumed all plants trade water for carbon in the exactly same way, ignoring experimental evidence showing considerable variation among plant types.

Not exact matches

The real «equilibrium climate sensitivity,» which is the amount of global warming to be expected for a doubling of atmospheric CO2, is likely to be about 1 °C, some three times smaller than most models assumed.

Even the most basic «LX» - spec models come with a power - adjustable driver's seat, three - zone climate control, a reversing camera and the clever folding seat mechanism (assuming you don't go for the hybrid model), with the $ 30,495 «Touring» trim adding satellite radio and powered sliding rear doors.

What climate models assume is a wide - ranging compendium of physical processes that are either well known but too complicated to incorporate into the climate model (for example the direct radiational effect of Carbon Dioxide on greenhouse warming is considerably * simplified * compared to the most sophisticated «line - by - line» radiation models that are available, simply because there isn't enough computer power to make the line - by - line calculation at every location on Earth at every time step within in a GCM), or are not sufficiently well - known to treat them with complete certainty.

For example, Brown and Caldeira (2017) use fluctuations in Earth's top - of - the - atmosphere (TOA) energy budget and their correlation with the response of climate models to increases in GHG concentrations to infer that ECS lies between 3 and 4.2 K with 50 % probability, and most likely is 3.7 K. Assuming t statistics, this roughly corresponds to an ECS range that in IPCC parlance is considered likely (66 % probability) between 2.8 and 4.5 K. By contrast, Cox et al. (2018) use fluctuations of the global - mean temperature and their correlation with the response of climate models to increases in GHG concentrations to infer that ECS likely lies between 2.2 and 3.4 K, and most likely is 2.8 K.

Most fundamentally, the inference revolves around assuming that there exists a linear relationship, and estimating parameters in the linear relationship from climate models.

I'm going to assume you aren't claiming that most climate scientists don't understand that there are issues with the models, that different models give different results, that as we move in time the models are less likely to be accurate, and that the models are just that models and not complete realistic representations of climate.

Carbon feedbacks however are very slow - most AR4 models assumed them to be zero for purposes of predicting climate 100 years in advance.

One of the most interesting things about the climate debate is that in one place it involves people arguing about point A (in this case sensitivity), by assuming that B is well known (in this case temperature change), while not far away people are hotly debating B. Most of AGW science, including F&G, is based on assuming that the surface statistical model means are famost interesting things about the climate debate is that in one place it involves people arguing about point A (in this case sensitivity), by assuming that B is well known (in this case temperature change), while not far away people are hotly debating B. Most of AGW science, including F&G, is based on assuming that the surface statistical model means are faMost of AGW science, including F&G, is based on assuming that the surface statistical model means are facts.

The climate model assumes that water vapor, the most important greenhouse gas, would increase in the upper atmosphere in response to the small warming effect from CO2 emissions.

RokShox says: October 24, 2013 at 12:31 pm «The climate model assumes that water vapor, the most important greenhouse gas, would increase in the upper atmosphere in response to the small warming effect from CO2 emissions.»

Recent research suggests that climate sensitivity is much lower than most models assume.

While simple comparisons of observations with simulations by climate models have sometimes been used, the most commonly used approach is based on linear regression models (OLS), sometimes assuming error in the predictor (TLS or EIV).

I think thy have «exaggerated» the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity (see posts to Jeff Glassman), as well as the assumed future CO2 levels in most of the model - based «scenarios and storylines», and thus have greatly exaggerated the projected future warming from increased CO2.

Skeptics have argued for quite some time that climate models assume too high of a sensitivity of temperature to CO2 — in other words, while most of us agree that Co2 increases can affect temperatures somewhat, the models assume temperature to be very sensitive to CO2, in large part because the models assume that the world's climate is dominated by positive feedback.

Most climate models used for the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report assume that enough additional nitrogen and phosphorus would be available for extra plant climate models used for the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report assume that enough additional nitrogen and phosphorus would be available for extra plant Climate Change (IPCC) report assume that enough additional nitrogen and phosphorus would be available for extra plant growth.