Sentences with phrase «other climate models did»

Sixteen other climate models did a poorer job of this.

Not exact matches

However, the recent period of cooling does suggest that either manmade global warming may be smaller or that the impact of other factors may be greater than climate models have so far assumed.

«Our model can help predict if forests are at risk of desertification or other climate change - related processes and identify what can be done to conserve these systems,» he said.

On the other hand, statistical analysis of the past century's hurricanes and computer modeling of a warmer climate, nudged along by greenhouse gases, does indicate that rising ocean temperatures could fuel hurricanes that are more intense.

And a proper discussion of climate change often does call for precise terms like external forcing and general circulation models, and other non-toddler friendly jargon.

Some climate models suggest that increasing greenhouse gases may be leading to a gradual strengthening of the Arctic vortex and hence increasing ozone losses, while others do not.

And parents don't know that our district will be the model for all others — because we do it best — we will collect SSP data in the form of social and emotional surveys, we will change our curriculum to socially engineer our children with social and emotional instruction without parents suspecting a thing, we will assess and survey up the wazoo about academics, school climate, cyberbullying, etc. while willing parents stand by, we will enhance our teacher evaluation program and refine it into a well - oiled teacher manipulation machine, and since our kids would do well no matter what because we have uber - involved parents, it will look like everything the Administrators are doing at the State's recommendation causes the success.

All of that stuff I listed off above does come at a price, but we have to keep in mind that our particular test car is a Vsport Premium model that packs a bunch of other features like 20 - way adjustable front seats, a reconfigurable gauge cluster, your choice of either real carbon fiber or wood cabin accents, color configurable head - up display, aluminum pedals, adaptive cruise control, front and rear automatic braking with collision preparation, a giant sunroof, tri-zone climate controls, heated rear seats and fancier wheels.

Especially as the hybrid model doesn't have access to those items as standard, despite costing $ 63,635, but at least the hybrid's standard - fit dual - zone climate control is welcome - though, as other hybrid alternatives from rival car makers are available for substantially less money, we wouldn't advise you go for the Lexus over its main competitors.

Standard climate models don't show skill at the interannual timescales which depend heavily on El Niño's and other relatively unpredictable internal variations (note that initiallised climate model projections that use historical ocean conditions may show some skill, but this is still a very experimental endeavour).

In order to understand the potential importance of the effect, let's look at what it could do to our understanding of climate: 1) It will have zero effect on the global climate models, because a) the constraints on these models are derived from other sources b) the effect is known and there are methods for dealing the errors they introduce c) the effect they introduce is local, not global, so they can not be responsible for the signal / trend we see, but would at most introduce noise into that signal 2) It will not alter the conclusion that the climate is changing or even the degree to which it is changing because of c) above and because that conclusion is supported by multiple additional lines of evidence, all of which are consistent with the trends shown in the land stations.

We discuss climate models a lot, and from the comments here and in other forums it's clear that there remains a great deal of confusion about what climate models do and how their results should be interpreted.

A national center is appropriate to host major super computers, data centers, instrumented aircraft, radars and other instruments, community weather and climate models, and teams of scientists working together on large problems that are difficult to do in single universities.

Some climate models suggest that increasing greenhouse gases may be leading to a gradual strengthening of the Arctic vortex and hence increasing ozone losses, while others do not.

Do climate models predict anything other than human CO2 release?

Moreover, even if methane leakage were to remain modest in some areas, long - term climate models suggest that warming trends have less to do with the rate of methane leakage and more to do with other variables, such as the thermal efficiency of future coal plants and whether the switch to gas is permanent or a bridge to zero - carbon energy.

Pearce makes the assertion (that I've also seen advanced by other authors) that IPCC models (that is, those upon which it bases its reports along with study reviews) do not adequately represent non-linearities in the climate system, & in particular do not correctly represent the potential for abrupt & rapid phase transitions.

Don't weather models play to the chaos effect (the starting location of each molecule) and climate models have the chaos effect dampened out so that the climate models can follow each other for years because the chaos effect has been stongly diminished?

As far as I know El Ninos like that of 2007 do occur in climate models (not that specific one), as does other large scale weather phenomena.

But for journalists and others who are not climate scientists, some narrative would help, as inline text and more clarification as footnotes if needed including, cover for example: — being very clear for a graph what was being forecast (people play silly games with Hansen, confusing which was BAU)-- Perhaps showing original graph first «This is what was predicted...» in [clearly a] sidebar THEN annotated / overlayed graph with «And this is how they did...» sidebar — placing the prediction in context of the evolving data and science (e.g. we'd reached 3xx ppm and trajectory was; or «used improved ocean model»; or whatever)-- perhaps a nod to the successive IPCC reports and links to their narrative, so the historical evolution is clear, and also perhaps, how the confidence level has evolved.

DeBuys finds that things will be fine for the 3.5 million people who currently depend on this water for daily use as long as (1) predictions of climate change models prove groundless, (2) the kind of droughts documented by tree rings and other records of past climate disruptions don't occur, and (3) the cities of central Arizona don't grow so much that they consume their agricultural buffer, their main protection against uncertain years ahead.

Part of the story here is that it is this very sort of very careful work done by John Kennedy and Phil Jones and other colleagues working on these datasets that has allowed us to start challenging the models and our understanding in such a detailed way — in some ways it is quite remarkable that the observational data is now good enough to identify this level of detail in how the climate varies and changes.

Finally I attempt a suggestion that perhaps one solution to the problem that the solar impact on climate is underestimated by models might be because EBM and GCM, like GISS, do not contain CO2 and CH4 cycle mechanisms that might be partially effected by the Sun, and other mechanisms are missing or uncertain (water vapor, cloud cover, vegetation, bacteria respiration, UV radiation, cosmic ray effects etc.).

It is possible that effective climate sensitivity increases over time (ignoring, as for equilibrium sensitivity, ice sheet and other slow feedbacks), but there is currently no model - independent reason to think that it does so.

Seeing as the hundred of other models certainly don't conform to the future behaviour of the climate — as they don't all track each other — it must be a fortuitous accident.

I think it is true that attribution studies must use appropriate climate models but that does not to my mind imply AOGCMs to the exclusion of all others.

Clearly something else other than CO2 has been the predominant cause of the warming 1910 - 1940, and climate models do not include this effect since they don't reproduce the magnitude of the warming.

The IPCC is straightforward in its introduction to attribution and doesn't claim anything other than that attribution needs some kind of modelling (because we can't put the climate in a bottle) and that this method relies on a number of different tactics, including the consensus of what these tactics mean of the experts.

Intuitively, the models seem to be running hot because (a) their climate response rate to doubling of CO2 is too high and (b) they do not adequately allow for negative feedbacks from clouds, among other influences which must remain beyond the realm of prediction due to their chaotic nature.

Regarding one other point you touched on, it's worth noting that climate models do poorly with ENSO and other chaotic variations, but well with long term temperature trends as a function of anthropogenic forcing.

Can you list a few high profile climate scientists that do a really good job, aren't dictated by the IPCC dogma (even if authors), and can be a role model for others?

As for my interest in the other side, that would be the side of light of course, while the dark side is where we find you groping about, led by the specious prognostications of AGW priests professing doom and gloom from their pseudoscientific crystal balls (aka climate models) if we don't lead a more sustainable life.

Second, I agree completely that direct human emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases do not directly heat the earth by the amount that climate models project.

First, the complicated models that develop emissions scenarios don't seem to be necessary for forcing the climate models; simply specifying a value of CO2 concentration (with the other greenhouse gases and anthropogenic aerosol) at 2100 along with a simple time trajectory is sufficient to force the climate model.

Curiously, this time around he doesn't mention that the models not only disagree with each other but also don't reproduce the climate observed today.

And in fact when you look at the scientific literature, it's an interesting disconnect because the modelers who study emissions and how to control those emissions are generally much more comfortable setting goals in terms of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas concentrations because that comes more or less directly out of their models and is much more proximate or more closely connected to what humans actually do to screw up the climate in the first place, which is emit these greenhouse gases.

The researchers used recent historical data and not climate modeling, so the study does not make any future predictions, but Swain says the findings appear to be consistent with other climate research that reveals there is little change in average precipitation, but an increase in the amount of very wet or very dry periods.

Networks might exhibit thrashing, or other perverse performances especially as complexity increases, but they just don't behave as the Stadium Wave model suggests the climate does.

Please don't hijack the science, and tell people like me, who understand most of the science (other than the intricacies of climate models) better than 99 % of US citizens, and have followed the science better than 99.8 % of US citizens, that we don't know what we are talking about.

If this were really true, then climate models are a total waste of time and money and we should just do energy balance arguments based on simple models of clouds and other feedbacks.

Since we do not have these models, it seems impossible to support anything other than «no regrets» policies on the issue and that those supporting expensive climate mitigation actions to be doing so not based on the science, but on their personal set of belief system.

There are many other questions on the future climate for which the models do provide better information than any other available approach.

The UK must be doing something right because other countries are modelling their efforts on the UK's legally binding Climate Change Act, which the UK's three main political leaders recently promised to uphold.

We emphasize that our study uses sensitivity experiments, which do not include other important processes found in coupled climate models (e.g., ocean dynamics).

Yet he gives no physical reason to conclude that the current scientific understanding on the response of climate system to CO2 (the «climate sensitivity») is wrong, other than to say that he does not trust climate models.

Moreover, long - term climate models suggest that warming trends have less to do with the rate of methane leakage and more to do with other variables, such as the thermal efficiency of future coal plants and whether the switch to gas is permanent or a bridge to zero - carbon energy.

It is misleading to consider only the atmosphere and ocean, as the climate models do, and ignore the other reservoirs.

«The community is still trying to figure out why some climate model simulations generate a warm Arctic - cold continents patterns, while others do not,» Vavrus said.

One doesn't need a climate model to determine climate sensitivity (Arrhenius and others managed to do so without climate models), one doesn't need a model to measure CO2 and the other GHGs and their sources, and one doesn't need a model to determine that a few degrees C increase leaves us with an ice - free planet with drowned cities.

«Some other models like CESM1 did include microphysics and an indirect aerosol effect, and had slightly lower 20th Century warming than observed... yet its climate sensitivity is higher than for [some other models that don't include the indirect aerosol effect]... the [GWPF] comment presumes that models have been tuned to reproduce the 20th Century temperature record, but this is mostly not true»