Sentences with phrase «predict current warming»

However, I am not sure it is fair to say that the IPCC simulations «failed» to predict the current warming hiatus.

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).

Not exact matches

The scientists» work, published in September in Current Biology, reveals the impact of the warming predicted to occur over the next 50 years.

The finding runs counter to current dark matter theories, in part because the temperature measured was warmer than popular theories predict.

Climate models do not predict an even warming of the whole planet: changes in wind patterns and ocean currents can change the way heat is distributed, leading to some parts warming much faster than average, while a few may cool, at least at first.

The report also predicts what implications warming seas may have for our planet in the near future if current trends continue.

At least half of current vegetated areas are predicted to shift to a different type of vegetation class, with a general trend of now - present grasses and small shrubs yielding to larger shrubs and trees as the climate warms, the scientists said.

«Current global climate models have failed to predict the rapid Arctic warming, and clouds are one of the largest uncertainties.

From his own research in chemical oceanography, along with data from a number of recent studies, Weber points out that some negative consequences of greenhouse gas emissions and warming «are manifesting faster than previously predicted,» including ocean acidification and oxygen loss, which are expected to affect «a large fraction of marine species if current trends continue unchecked.»

Current state - of - the - art climate models predict that increasing water vapor concentrations in warmer air will amplify the greenhouse effect created by anthropogenic greenhouse gases while maintaining nearly constant relative humidity.

The response to global warming of deep convective clouds is also a substantial source of uncertainty in projections since current models predict different responses of these clouds.

So the «skeptics» need proxies, because they want to believe that it has been this warm before (for some reason that the current models can't predict), and it went away of its own accord.

they want to believe that it has been this warm before (for some reason that the current models can't predict),

What geologists can't do is predict current and future consequences of global warming and climate changes through our expert knowledge of the Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras.

This suggests to me that he was getting the basics more or less right, which in turn emphasises the point that the best models and theory we have all predict and have consistently predicted the same thing: warming, and quite a bit of it by the end of this century if we keep dumping CO2 in the atmosphere at our current rates.

But this is in a period that the Bureau has predicted is likely, based on statistical analysis of historical data and current sea surface conditions, to be warmer than the historical average (see here.

Anyway it is a false comparison to compare old temperatures with new temperatures when asking «wht should we do» you need to compare «our solution» with «their solution» If you are advocating a political strategy you need to accept current proposed strategies will probably still result in the majority of the global warming predicted in the ordinary scenario (if not all of it — a point which I can argue if you like).

A comprehensive policy will be needed — one with multiple reduction triggers (Downstream Cap and Trade as well as CO2 based CAFE standards for example), an expansive energy R&D policy (much like the one called for by Nordhaus and Shellenberg), and an adaptation plan for areas that will be critically effected by the warming predicted without any current reduction policy.

These events were not predicted to occur in the context of our current 1C warming.

But as cogently interpreted by the physicist and climate expert Dr. Joseph Romm of the liberal Center for American Progress, «Latif has NOT predicted a cooling trend — or a «decades - long deep freeze» — but rather a short - time span where human - caused warming might be partly offset by ocean cycles, staying at current record levels, but then followed by «accelerated» warming where you catch up to the long - term human - caused trend.

But humans are not the cause of the current changes any more than they were for the impossible - for - models - to - predict Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age.

Kevin Hamilton, who co-authored the report, warns: «If our model results prove to be representative of the real global climate, then climate is actually more sensitive to perturbations by greenhouse gases than current global models predict, and even the highest warming predictions would underestimate the real change we could see.»

Since OHC has continued going up throughout, Pielke correctly predicted the current situation, and the globe has warmed throughout the «pause».

The current generation of GCMs failed to account for a significant piece of data and therefore predicted too much warming — they were imperfect, or if you insist, wrong.

If the «pause» continues into the 2030s, as predicted by Wyatt / Curry, then the «stadium wave» hypothesis has been corroborated as a plausible explanation for (at least) a significant portion of the past warming and current slight cooling — and, while not falsifying AGW itself, it will most likely have falsified the IPCC hypothesis of CAGW (as outlined specifically in its AR4 and AR5 reports).

«The stadium wave signal predicts that the current pause in global warming could extend into the 2030s,» Wyatt said, the paper's lead author.

If IPCC are right, and the current «pause» will reverse itself at the end of this year, back to the observed warming trend (0.11 ºC per decade since 1990), it will take 27 years for this to happen, i.e. by 2041, or a bit sooner than predicted by IPCC in 1990.

On the other hand: arctic waters are warming rapidly, and such pulses are predicted to grow as global climate change causes shifts in long - distance currents.

«In our study, we predicted that about half of the species on the Barva Transect have such narrow ranges that, with the 3 °C of warming predicted by the IPPC over the current century, their predicted range will no longer include any portion of their current range.»

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.

The models have, in general, failed to predict or even allow for the current warming plateau.

and of course «If the role of internal variability in the climate system is as large as this analysis would seem to suggest, warming over the 21st century may well be larger than that predicted by the current generation of models, given the propensity of those models to underestimate climate internal variability»

-- never predicted monotonic warming — never predicted that natural variability would cease — do argue for significant warming by the end of the century — suggest several possible causes for the current warming hiatus * — reject claims that the hiatus invalidates any of the above on grounds of robust physics and parsimonious reasoning

However, current climate models do predict that a doubling of carbon dioxide might produce more warming: from 3.6 degrees F to 9 degrees F or more.

Some climate models predict that the increased rainfall may weaken, or perhaps even stop, the Atlantic currents that carry warm water northward from the tropics and may plunge Europe into a new ice age.

Projected temperature would increase by 2050 by about 2 °C above the current level (a warming similar to that predicted by the ensemble mean of the CMIP5 simulations) and precipitation would decrease by an additional 30 % compared to the current conditions.

Do these models also predict the current nine years of cooling or when the 2ppmv annual increase in CO2 concentrarion will once again cause catastropic global warming as predicted by the models in the IPCC 2001TAR which predicted the non existant warming from human sourced CO2 emissions over the past ten years that never happened?

req'd), found Artic temperatures almost beyond imagination — above 23 °C (74 °F)-- temperatures more than 18 °F warmer than current climate models had predicted when applied to this period.

That would be 0.9 degrees Celsius below the amount of warming that Climate Action Tracker projects to occur under current policies, and 1.4 to 2.1 degrees Celsius below the amount of warming the group predicts would occur in the absence of any global warming policies.

The current climate models predict that if we continue increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere it will cause dramatic man - made global warming.

Just because great climate flips can happen in response to global warming doesn't mean that they are the most probable outcome of our current situation, what one might «forecast» (that's one of the reasons why I've been careful not to «predict» a cooling in the next century).

On the Guardian's forums, you'll find endless claims that the hockey stick graph of global temperatures has been debunked; that sunspots are largely responsible for current temperature changes; that the world's glaciers are advancing; that global warming theory depends entirely on computer models; that most climate scientists in the 1970s were predicting a new ice age.

I think the warming will be much less than the current models predict.

But a growing body of scientific evidence suggests that the projections of climate change that have been made by the current family of computerized climate models has been overdone — that the world will warm up significantly less than has been predicted as a result of our ongoing carbon dioxide emissions.

«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.»

If the previous models are unskilled at predicting the current hiatus in surface warming and this is really because the warming has gone into the oceans then exactly how long will this take to come back and bite us in the bum?

«warming over the 21st century may well be larger than that predicted by the current generation of models»

Global warming was invisible, no more than a possibility, and not even a current possibility but something predicted to emerge only after decades had passed.

The European Union's current goal of 40 % emission cuts by 2030 is at the low end of what climate science predicts will lead to global warming of 2 - 2.4 °C.

If the role of internal variability in the climate system is as large as this analysis would seem to suggest, warming over the 21st century may well be larger than that predicted by the current generation of models, given the propensity of those models to underestimate climate internal variability.