Sentences with phrase «observed temperatures»

In the meantime, their results have tentatively breathed a small hint of life back into the climate models, basically buying them a bit more time — time for either the observed temperatures to start rising rapidly as current models expect, or, time for the modelers to try to fix / improve cloud processes, oceanic processes, and other process of variability (both natural and anthropogenic) that lie behind what would be the clearly overheated projections.

This is quite comparable with 5 to 10 W / m ^ 2, so I still can't figure out Willis» «50 times» and even the maximum estimate of 10W / m ^ 2 would easily be conducted and radiated away, especially at the observed temperatures over 700K.

The plateau that we can observe in the maximum annual temperatures observed in the last few years is negated by a recent increase in the minimum observed temperatures.

Just for one prominent example, when NOAA and / or NASA cite 2014 as being the hottest year on record, in a context of stating their official positions concerning climate change — as were 1998, 2005, and 2010 similarly cited — then for purposes of verifying the AR5 model ensemble, what they are really saying is that the trend of peak hottest years is what matters most to them as climate scientists, not the central trend of observed temperatures.

Therefore the PDF Bell curve that Gavin showed in his realclimate post claiming that 110 % of warming is anthropogenic since 1950, should instead have demonstrated that GCMs exaggerate warming to about 150 % of the observed temperatures.

It is demonstrated that choosing 4 models which do a half way decent job of reproducing «natural variability» in terms of ENSO also reproduce observed temperatures rather better.

While few expect the pause to persist much longer, it has raised some questions about the growing divergence between observed temperatures and those predicted by climate scientists.

I'm not sure whether the new black carbon forcing estimates would, in theory at least, make much difference - the BC effect is already in the observed temperatures.

The whole concept of direct radiation supposedly heating the surface to observed temperatures is wrong and a totally different paradigm involving entropy maximization and thermodynamics at the molecular level is now known to be what explains planetary surface temperatures being higher than what can be explained with radiation.

The model states are not telling us anything about what caused the observed temperatures.

Can you post a graph of the different RCP's and observed temperatures, perhaps with CO2 generation forecast with observed.

Black line shows observed temperatures.

Figure 1 in the paper shows observed temperatures through 2009 and projected temperatures thereafter under various scenarios, all relative to the 1890 - 1910 mean.

In an article here, they wrote «The differences between the predictions and the observed temperatures were significantly greater (by a factor of two) than what one would get just applying random numbers.»

However, when these influences are filtered out (red), the observed temperatures fall very close to the central climate model projections, which RFC12 notes are based on greenhouse gas emissions scenarios that accurately reflect the observed CO2 changes over that timeframe.

The study estimates climate sensitivity — how much the world will warm when carbon dioxide levels increase * — from changes in observed temperatures and estimates of the warming effect of greenhouse gases and other drivers of climate change, from the mid / late 19th century until 2016.

Graph the actual observed temperatures against the actual published predictions of the IPCC from 1990 as shown below.

If you look at everything equatorward of 60S and 60N then the observed temperatures have warmed much more slowly than the mean.

I'm afraid that much of the strength of the reaction to your questions was based on past experiences - I can not count how many times someone has commented here and on other climate blogs claiming despite the evidence that mismatches between specific projections and observed temperatures somehow invalidate all climate modeling, despite the projected emissions not matching actuals.

Conventional statistical and graphical analysis, on the other hand asks how consistent is the range of observed temperatures on the subject period with the expected range given the past trend, not the expected range given what someone from the IPCC said, especially noting that people from the IPCC are given to making predictions not based on anything in the IPCC's science.

The only appropriate test is to examine whether the relationship embodied in the physics of the models holds between actual emissions and observed temperatures, not between observations from actual emissions and «what if» scenarios with wholly different GHG histories.

If JSmith made mistakes or inaccuracies in matching the observed temperatures to the 1990 IPCC predictions as they were published below, don't just settle for saying he did it wrong.

The forecast showed an almost exact correspondence to observed temperatures across most of the land areas of the Northern Hemisphere with the exception for the region near Mongolia.

If you are not applying all the forcings to your model runs (by ignoring or assigning arbitrary forcings to aerosols, for example), it is entirely unsurprising that you aren't seeing a good match to observed temperatures.

«I elected to focus on a comparison between the observed temperatures and those projected to have occurred under Hansen's (in his words) «business - as - usual» (BAU) scenario.»

What you can say is the observed temperatures are consistent with model outputs giving a particular set of forcings.

If there was a CO2 signal, then by now the observed temperatures would be outside the + / - 0.25 limits; on the high side.

They recommend an adaptive strategy grounded on an index of the warming attributable to human influence, which is itself based on observed temperatures.

Solar radiation can not possible raise the temperature of that thin surface layer of the ocean to the observed temperatures, because over 90 % of the radiative flux is warming layers below that...

Happer points to a graph from John R. Christy to claim that observed temperatures do not match those of climate models.

Design / methodology / approach: The analyses are based on the IPCC's own reports, the observed temperatures versus the IPCC model - calculated temperatures and the warming effects of greenhouse gases based on the critical studies of climate sensitivity (CS).

This should work correctly as we know that those observed temperatures are compatible (plus / minus all kinds of uncertainties) with the physics embodied in the GCM model.

Anomalies simply take the average of the observed temperatures (daily, monthly, annual, max, min, or what have you), and convert them to a scale with a different zero point — a zero defined as the mean observed temperature over some accepted calibration period.

It reproduces the observed temperatures pretty well.

Only the simulations that included human influences exhibited warming similar to the observed temperatures around the globe during the last century.

The verifying observed temperatures for Europe Jan - Feb - Mar 2013 in degrees Celsius.

In this graph from the U.N.'s IPCC, colored areas show temperature predictions, the black dots are actual observed temperatures.

A comparison of the radiative equilibrium temperatures with the observed temperatures has indicated the extent to which the other atmospheric processes, such as convection, large - scale circulation, and condensation processes, influence the thermal energy balance of the system.

And until such is explained (as I have) then anyone not understanding the relevant physics can not correctly understand observed temperatures in any planetary surface.

Instead of plotting individual year datapoints for observed temperatures, plotted 3 - year (36 - month averages ending in December): this reflects an expectation that models can't predict accurately every annual period, but over longer 3 - year periods the model and observation trends should better match.

Taking that to heart, the accompanying chart has 3 - year average plots of highly adjusted observed temperatures from the NASA and UK climate agencies - the 3 - year averages remove the focus from peaks / troughs.

The prediction for 2015 becoming the hottest year on record is based on observed temperatures so far, plus the coming El Niño event.

The hockey stick has a 900 - year - long shaft that is almost entirely proxy temperatures and a 20th century blade that is almost entirely observed temperatures.

effect that they can then exaggerate the difference between projected and observed temperatures.

1961 - 2: Carl Sagan correctly predicts very thick greenhouse gases in the atmosphere of Venus, as the only way to explain the very high observed temperatures.

That would lead to permanent oscillations in the fit also in ocean areas and that would in turn cause significant errors in the interpretation of the SST measurements as the oscillating fit varies more than the real observed temperatures and makes the deviation of the observed temperature from that expected vary as well as a artefact.

While acknowledging there are «differences» between modeled and observed temperatures for «periods as short as 10 to 15 years,» the IPCC's 2013 Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) claims models and observations «agree» over the 62 - year period from 1951 to 2012 (Summary for Policymakers, p. 15).

«What IS the issue is how observed temperatures compare to what has been forecast to happen.»

In this data set» printf, 1,» this «decline» has been artificially removed in an ad - hoc way, and» printf, 1,» this means that data after 1960 no longer represent tree - ring printf, 1,» density variations, but have been modified to look more like the printf, 1,» observed temperatures.»

Now, arguably, the observed temperatures for the last decade or so are tending towards the lower end of the model envelope (note, though, that this figure does not plot the coverage - bias - corrected data from Cowtan and Way, which would raise the final observed temperatures and trends slightly).