Sentences with phrase «prediction of future temperatures»

Only slightly off - subject: the Guardian's environment editor John Vidal has just published dire predictions of future temperatures worse than Monbiot's worst wet dreams, issuing from an MIT Global Change (that's what they call themselves) thinktank, which is financed by ExxonMobil, Shell, BP and Electricité de France, among others.

Seems to me that the point at which you should crow about predictions of future temperatures being wrong is the point at which any known magnitude of year - to - year fluctuation (anomalies?)

The consequences for models» predictions of the future temperature can be seen in Figure 4, which shows that the mesoscale model's projections of mean maximum summertime temperatures over the eastern US for July 2085 soar into the 95 - 110 °F range, while the corresponding predictions for the GCM range between 75 - 95 °F.

Going forward and without knowing the origin for the need of the efficacy measures significantly different than unity, one might well conclude that prediction of future temperature increases from AGW would be the same with or without the efficacy measure.

Not exact matches

The researchers then used a mathematical model that combined the conflict data with temperature and rainfall projections through 2050 to come up with predictions about the likelihood of climate - related violence in the future.

Comparing the snakes» most active temperature range with predictions of shifts due to climate change, the team pointed out that the timing of seasonal activities may shift in the future — which could impact their interactions with other species.

«The overall predictions for the future of the area is of a more maritime climate, particularly warmer temperatures and increased precipitation during winter,» Høye says.

Does this mean that the predictions of Antarctic ice melting derive from future projections of global temperature increase, and not from existing ice data?

Earlier you said «This site has tiny handful of the predictions made and how they have failed» yet all the examples you have given appear to be about either projections of global temperatures, which I am sure others will pick up on if you want to push the issue, or the timespan we have available to take action to avoid committing ourselves to future consequences.

Canadian Ice Service, 4.7, Multiple Methods As with CIS contributions in June 2009, 2010, and 2011, the 2012 forecast was derived using a combination of three methods: 1) a qualitative heuristic method based on observed end - of - winter arctic ice thicknesses and extents, as well as an examination of Surface Air Temperature (SAT), Sea Level Pressure (SLP) and vector wind anomaly patterns and trends; 2) an experimental Optimal Filtering Based (OFB) Model, which uses an optimal linear data filter to extrapolate NSIDC's September Arctic Ice Extent time series into the future; and 3) an experimental Multiple Linear Regression (MLR) prediction system that tests ocean, atmosphere and sea ice predictors.

5) Given the complexity of climate, no confident prediction about future global mean temperature or its impact can be made.

I suspect that it looked OK in your view or you didn't check; «the paper i cited talks of the hiatus in global temperatures for the past 20 years or so, that the Little Ice Age was global in extent, and that climate models can not account for the observations we already have let alone make adequate predictions about what will happen in the future.

Canadian Ice Service, 4.7 (+ / - 0.2), Heuristic / Statistical (same as June) The 2015 forecast was derived by considering a combination of methods: 1) a qualitative heuristic method based on observed end - of - winter Arctic ice thickness extents, as well as winter Surface Air Temperature, Sea Level Pressure and vector wind anomaly patterns and trends; 2) a simple statistical method, Optimal Filtering Based Model (OFBM), that uses an optimal linear data filter to extrapolate the September sea ice extent timeseries into the future and 3) a Multiple Linear Regression (MLR) prediction system that tests ocean, atmosphere and sea ice predictors.

There are many who will not like this recent paper published in Nature Communications on principle as it talks of the hiatus in global temperatures for the past 20 years or so, that the Little Ice Age was global in extent, and that climate models can not account for the observations we already have let alone make adequate predictions about what will happen in the future.

Levine, R.C., Turner, A.G., Marathayil, D. and Martin, G.M. (accepted Dec 2012), The role of northern Arabian Sea surface temperature biases in CMIP5 model simulations and future predictions of Indian summer monsoon rainfall, in press, Climate Dynamics., DOI 10.1007 / s00382 -012-1656-x link

Scaling factors derived from detection analyses can be used to scale predictions of future change by assuming that the fractional error in model predictions of global mean temperature change is constant (Allen et al., 2000, 2002; Allen and Stainforth, 2002; Stott and Kettleborough, 2002).

The GCM models referred to as climate models are actually weather models only capable of predicting weather about two weeks into the future and as we are aware from our weather forecasts temperature predictions...

And, believe me, Vaughan, that's the only curve that most people will be looking at in your analysis — your «prediction» of the future temperature allegedly caused by human CO2 emissions.

Yet some kind of climate model is indispensable to make future predictions of the climate system and IPCC has identified several reasons for respect in the climate models including the fact that models are getting better in predicting what monitoring evidence is actually observing around the world in regard to temperature, ice and snow cover, droughts and floods, and sea level rise among other things.

Only if we assume that things are going to go on doing the same sort of thing that they have been doing since good temperature records began, do we have any basis for future predictions.

This has significant implications for the future and indicates that the IPCC climate models were wrong in their prediction of global temperatures soaring 1 °F per decade for the rest of the century.

Quantitative predictions pertaining to future temperatures are in the Appendix of the earlier paper published March 2012.

Canadian Ice Service; 5.0; Statistical As with Canadian Ice Service (CIS) contributions in June 2009 and June 2010, the 2011 forecast was derived using a combination of three methods: 1) a qualitative heuristic method based on observed end - of - winter Arctic Multi-Year Ice (MYI) extents, as well as an examination of Surface Air Temperature (SAT), Sea Level Pressure (SLP) and vector wind anomaly patterns and trends; 2) an experimental Optimal Filtering Based (OFB) Model which uses an optimal linear data filter to extrapolate NSIDC's September Arctic Ice Extent time series into the future; and 3) an experimental Multiple Linear Regression (MLR) prediction system that tests ocean, atmosphere, and sea ice predictors.

If you are to have even the slightest hope of persuading people that they need to take any action, you have to have a rock solid case that you fully understand the recent temperature non-events, can explain convincingly why you didn't foresee and predict it, have taken all the lessons into account in your models and are prepared to be a little more humble and a little less dogmatic about your future predictions.

Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century's developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly exaggerated computer predictions combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a rollback of the industrial age.

Because the interactions between ozone, temperature, mixing rates, water vapor (and other chemicals) are complex and multi-faceted, accurate predictions of the future ozone layer's health in the face of predicted or unexpected changes are difficult.

2) CAGW movement type models never reconstruct any lengthy past history accurately without creative and unique adjustment of aerosol values used as a fudge factor; that is why models of widely varying sensitivities supposedly all accurately reconstruct the past (different made - up assumed historical values used for each) but fail in future prediction, like they didn't predict how global average temperatures have been flat to declining over the past 15 years.

Canadian Ice Service, 4.7 (± 0.2), Heuristic / Statistical (same as June) The 2015 forecast was derived by considering a combination of methods: 1) a qualitative heuristic method based on observed end - of - winter Arctic ice thickness extents, as well as winter Surface Air Temperature, Sea Level Pressure and vector wind anomaly patterns and trends; 2) a simple statistical method, Optimal Filtering Based Model (OFBM), that uses an optimal linear data filter to extrapolate the September sea ice extent timeseries into the future and 3) a Multiple Linear Regression (MLR) prediction system that tests ocean, atmosphere and sea ice predictors.

-- Muller believes humans are changing climate with CO2 emissions — humans have been responsible for «most» of a 0.4 C warming since 1957, almost none of the warming before then — IPCC is in trouble due to sloppy science, exaggerated predictions; chairman will have to resign — the «Climategate» mails were not «hacked» — they were «leaked» by an insider — due to «hide the decline» deception, Muller will not read any future papers by Michael Mann — there has been no increase in hurricanes or tornadoes due to global warming — automobiles are insignificant in overall picture — China is the major CO2 producer, considerably more than USA today — # 1 priority for China is growth of economy — global warming is not considered important — China CO2 efficiency (GDP per ton CO2) is around one - fourth of USA today, has much room for improvement — China growth will make per capita CO2 emissions at same level as USA today by year 2040 — if it is «not profitable» it is «not sustainable» — US energy future depends on shale gas for automobiles; hydrogen will not be a factor — nor will electric cars, due to high cost — Muller is upbeat on nuclear (this was recorded pre-Fukushima)-- there has been no warming in the USA — Muller was not convinced of Hansen's GISS temperature record; hopes BEST will provide a better record.

If I want to make a projection (not a prediction) of temperature into the future, I need three things:

As with previous CIS contributions, the 2016 forecast was derived by considering a combination of methods: 1) a qualitative heuristic method based on observed end - of - winter Arctic ice thickness / extent, as well as winter surface air temperature, spring ice conditions and the summer temperature forecast; 2) a simple statistical method, Optimal Filtering Based Model (OFBM), that uses an optimal linear data filter to extrapolate the September sea ice extent time - series into the future and 3) a Multiple Linear Regression (MLR) prediction system that tests ocean, atmosphere and sea ice predictors.

«Since the weather prediction model simulated the frequency and timing of summer precipitation more reliably than the global model, its daily high temperature predictions for the future are also believed to be more accurate,» added co-author Leonard Druyan, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University.

One element of a compromise that I would suggest is that when referring to past temperatures and future predictions / projections that the term «estimated» be used before the number of the temperature being discussed.

Using temperature readings from the past 100 years, 1,000 computer simulations and the evidence left in ancient tree rings, Duke University scientists announced yesterday that «the magnitude of future global warming will likely fall well short of current highest predictions.»

This article presents multiple reasons why any future increase in temperature should not be regarded as a vindication of the current models and their predictions.

By WUWT regular «Just The Facts» I am often amused by claims that we understand Earth's climate system, are able to accurately measure its behavior, eliminate all potential variables except CO2 as the primary driver of Earth's temperature and make predictions of Earth's temperature decades into the future, all with a high degree of confidence.

The Schlesinger group study does exactly this, applying their in - house model to analyze historic changes in temperature to narrow predictions of the future.

If our use of the IPCC's own predictions of future CO2 growth on the A2 scenario, and its own equation for converting those predictions to equilibrium temperature, leads to predictions of temperature response that are different from those of the IPCC, then it may be that we are doing the sums wrong, in which case a true scientist would point out what we are doing wrong.

It is surely not particularly difficult to understand that the IPCC's temperature predictions, on the A2 scenario, depend first upon its predictions of future (exponential) growth in CO2 concentration, and secondly upon its estimates of the quantum of equilibrium warming to be expected in response to its predicted increase in CO2 concentration.

Specifically, key parameters of the Human System, such as fertility, health, migration, economic inequality, unemployment, GDP per capita, resource use per capita, and emissions per capita, must depend on the dynamic variables of the Human — Earth coupled system.26 Not including these feedbacks would be like trying to make El Niño predictions using dynamic atmospheric models but with sea surface temperatures as an external input based on future projections independently produced (e.g., by the UN) without feedbacks.

Indeed, working with predictions for future temperature increases and glacier melt rates generated by ten separate global climate models — all of which are also used by the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change - the team have concluded that these smaller ice sources will contribute around 12 centimetres to world sea - level increases over the remainder of the century, with this likely to have catastrophic consequences for numerous natural habitats as well as for hundreds of thousands of people.