Sentences with phrase «predicted by climate scientists»

Thickening ice in Antarctica has been predicted by climate scientists for a long time, as a consequence of the greater moisture - carrying capacity of warmer air, so evidence for a thickening ice sheet would actually support, not negate, other evidence for global warming.

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.

As warming in the Arctic has been increasing as predicted by the climate scientists, I presume the HadCRUT temperatures are getting less accurate.

In fact I have been crying GW for 15 years & attributing all sorts of harms to AGW (as predicted by climate scientists & their models to happen or increase over time).

That is a pattern long predicted by climate scientists using computer simulations.

Not exact matches

A new paper published by scientists in the Northeast finds that long - term studies at the local scale are needed to accurately predict and manage the effects of climate change.

A new study by scientists from WCS (Wildlife Conservation Society) and other groups predicts that the effects of climate change will severely impact the Albertine Rift, one of Africa's most biodiverse regions and a place not normally associated with global warming.

The scientists, part of a team headed by researchers at Laval University in Quebec, used climate reconstructions from 21,000 years ago to the present to predict where caribou habitat would likely exist and they matched reservoirs of high genetic diversity to areas with the most stable habitat over time.

Climate scientists predict the oceans could rise three feet by 2100, submerging Maldivian fishing villages and luxury resorts alike.

In cooperation with scientists from the Thünen - Institut and the Ecuadorian Universidad Técnica Particular de Loja, a team from TUM compared the predicted loss of area of tree species caused by deforestation on the one hand and by predicted forest losses in an extreme climate change scenario on the other.

One possible source is a 1938 study by pioneering climate scientist Guy Callendar in which he predicted that doubling the global concentration of carbon dioxide from pre-industrial levels would result in around 2 °C of warming.

Up until now, scientists have sought to quantify the risk of climate change to different species by mapping where those species occur today based on climate and then predicting where they may occur in the future.

The discovery of genes involved in the production of DMSP in phytoplankton, as well as bacteria, will allow scientists to better evaluate which organisms make DMSP in the marine environment and predict how the production of this influential molecule might be affected by future environmental changes, such as the warming of the oceans due to climate change.

The consequences of global sea level rise could be even scarier than the worst - case scenarios predicted by the dominant climate models, which don't fully account for the fast breakup of ice sheets and glaciers, NASA scientists said today (Aug. 26) at a press briefing.

Tropical Pacific climate variations and their global weather impacts may be predicted much further in advance than previously thought, according to research by an international team of climate scientists from the USA, Australia, and Japan.

Scientists are trying to predict this new, warmer state by looking into the record of past eras of climate change.

Fascinatingly, the book from the mid-70s said that there was one climate scientist — Wally Broecker - who predicted that the greenhouse warming was on the verge of overtaking the aerosol cooling effects and that by the year 2000 the planet would be warmer than it had been in 1000 years.

The scientists, part of a team headed by researchers at Laval University in Quebec, used climate reconstructions from 21,000 years ago to the present to predict where caribou habitat would likely exist.

June 29, 2017 • Scientists and economists predict what parts of the U.S. may get hit hardest by climate change.

Climate scientists predict that by the end of this century, temperatures could rise 10 °F worldwide.

Scientists predict climate change will reduce the Colorado River's flow by 10 to 30 percent by 2050.»

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).

I'm no climate scientist, but I know models in all fields are based on clusters of formulae, and these formulae are often derived from real world data partly by trial and error, and adjusting terms until they can reliably predict past and future data.

Time is not on our side and we are going to see the consequences of climate change faster than predicted by scientists at the cost of mankind.

Last summer, government scientists predicted that, as a result of climate change, polar bears may disappear from the U.S. and its waters entirely by 2050 — and that estimate doesn't even take into account potential effects from new oil and gas activities.

The study comes as scientists have predicted proliferation of these blooms as the climate changes, and amid increasing attention by the news media and local politicians to the worst cases.

In 1971, the Washington Post reported that research based on climate modeling developed by NASA scientist James Hansen predicted that glaciers would cover much of the globe within 50 years — by 2021 — because of mankind's fossil - fuel dust blotting out the sun.

It goes like this: The good scientists agree that global warming is human induced and would be addressed if America ratified the Kyoto global warming pact, while bad heretical scientists question climate models that predict Armageddon because they are venal and corrupted by oil money.

Dr. Indur M. Goklany, a top scientist on the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), says the recent report by UN's World Health Organization (WHO) predicting 250,000 deaths annually caused by global warming utilized «willful exaggerations» to promote more climate alClimate Change (IPCC), says the recent report by UN's World Health Organization (WHO) predicting 250,000 deaths annually caused by global warming utilized «willful exaggerations» to promote more climate alclimate alarmism.

From the abstract: «The emission scenarios used by the IPCC and by mainstream climate scientists are largely derived from the predicted demand for fossil fuels, and in our view take insufficient consideration of the constrained emissions that are likely due to the depletion of these fuels.

Even little Joey Jones is talking greenhouse gases — he learned at school that scientists are predicting a worldwide climate catastrophe that will change the rest of his life, unless we stop the worst effects by making big changes in the next ten years.

Global warming's crystal ball is clearing as climate models improve, and scientists now predict that some regions will see a month's less rain and snow by 2100.

If climate change is so wrong, why do these deniers not line every shore that scientists predict will be hit by hurricanes?»

The report, by University of Alabama scientist Roy Spencer and published in the peer - reviewed journal Remote Sensing, argues that heat is actually escaping from Earth much more quickly than current climate models predicted.

These are among several possibilities that scientists from all over the world grapple with as they attempt to develop a regional climate model for Sunderbans that can predict different scenarios at a time when the mangrove delta is being battered by cyclones and getting inundated due to sea - level rise.

Climate Scientist Who Got It Right Predicts 20 More Years of Global Cooling — «For the next 20 years, I predict global cooling of about 3 / 10ths of a degree Fahrenheit, as opposed to the one - degree warming predicted by the IPCC,» said [Geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook, professor emeritus of geology at Western Washington University and author of 150 scientific journal articles and 10 books, including «Evidence Based Climate Science,» which was published in 2011.

A significant and serious concern among mainstream climate scientists in this regard is the inability of the models to predict climate surprises, that is, rapid non-linear changes in the climate system that have happened in the historical climate record and that may be triggered by current human activities.

For decades, climate scientists have predicted that rising levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases from the human combustion of fossil fuel could lead to global warming, and that warming would be accompanied by more frequent or more violent storms.

Choice 1: How much money do we want to spend today on reducing carbon dioxide emission without having a reasonable idea of: a) how much climate will change under business as usual, b) what the impacts of those changes will be, c) the cost of those impacts, d) how much it will cost to significantly change the future, e) whether that cost will exceed the benefits of reducing climate change, f) whether we can trust the scientists charged with developing answers to these questions, who have abandoned the ethic of telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but, with all the doubts, caveats, ifs, ands and buts; and who instead seek lots of publicity by telling scary stories, making simplified dramatic statements and making little mention of their doubts, g) whether other countries will negate our efforts, h) the meaning of the word hubris, when we think we are wise enough to predict what society will need a half - century or more in the future?

Here's a prediction from 2007 where a climate scientist predicts that Arctic sea ice may disappear by 2013, saying that since his modelling didn't include the last couple of record lows in its training data,» you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative.»

4 Core Case Study: Studying a Volcano to Understand Climate Change NASA scientists correctly predicted that the 1991 Philippines explosion would cool the average temperature of the earth by 0.5 C o over a 15 month period and then return to normal by 1995.

This was not predicted by any U.S. climate scientist, nor by NOAA, nor by NASA and certainly not by the political technocrats at the UN's IPCC.

Climate scientists predicted years ago that — at present rates of melting — the Arctic could be ice - free in September by mid-century.

The red curve shows actual temperature cooling since 2003, which was not predicted by a single crank «expert» climate scientist.

Almost immediately, another «prestigious» group of scientists waded in with a new «peer - reviewed» report predicting that climate change will cause a million deaths a year by 2020, $ 157 billion in annual damages, and indescribable misery for the world's poorest countries.

Due to climate change caused by global warming and pollution, scientists predict that winter will end three weeks earlier.

But to make things worse, climate scientists predict that between 2080 and 2099, soil moisture will decrease by between 5 % and 15 % worldwide.

Yet, when scientists examine the empirical temperature measurement datasets, it becomes readily apparent that changes in CO2 levels are not generating the expected changes in global temperatures, as predicted by the immensely powerful and sophisticated (and incredibly costly) climate models.

Hang on... we've been told for years by apparent top climate scientists to expect less snowfalls, climate models predict warmer winters, ex-politicians claiming ice - free polar caps, hand - wringing news articles of children who would never experience snowfalls, on and on... but now we're expected to believe exactly the opposite because that's what's happening now.

If you are a scientist or engineer and believe the AGW part of climate change is well described by the models, then I will ask you to explain how the hypothesis is calculated and how independnently validated by others experiments, over the time periods predicted ex ante, not ex post, how the forcing variable from CO2 to water vapour was hypothesisied and then proven.