Sentences with phrase «predictions about future climate»

The real theme of George's column is that climate scientists do not understand enough to make predictions about future climate change, and therefore their warnings are primarily merely ploys («unsubstantiated by fact», to quote George) to increase their own research funding.

It seems obvious that scientist would want to be «using past data to make predictions about future climate...» Indeed, I would have thought that this would have already have been the ideal model all along.

Until we do, we can not make good predictions about future climate change... Over the last several hundred thousand years, climate change has come mainly in discrete jumps that appear to be related to changes in the mode of thermohaline circulation.»

Until we do, we can not make good predictions about future climate change.»

In as much as none of the model scenarios can be validated, all predictions about future climate conditions amount to nothing more that, «Wait to see if our predictions come true; you'll see then.

Is Trenberth saying that we are making too many Type II errors when we don't judge these models incapable of making useful predictions about future climate?

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.

The method combines a model for systems such as weather or climate with real - world data points to develop predictions about the future.

The finding suggests that future climate simulations, unlike current ones, should account for the effects of these algae when making predictions about glacial melt.

Armed with these tools, Zeebe was able to make new predictions about long - term future climate change.

«A better understanding of the controls on reef development in the past will allow us to make better predictions about which reefs may be most vulnerable to climate change in the future.»

«A challenge for the coming years is to use these kinds of climate models to be able to make predictions about populations and ecosystems in the future.

Charles Lansdale wonders why we should believe predictions about climate change 50 years into the future when computer modellers sometimes...

The more data we have about what's happened across millions of years of climate, the better our predictions of the future will be.»

His model also makes specific predictions about the effect these clouds will have on the planet's climate and the types of information that future telescopes, like the James Webb Space Telescope, will be able to gather.

As can be seen your graph, our climate models make a wide range of predictions (perhaps 0.5 - 5 degC, a 10-fold uncertainty) about how much «committed warming» will occur in the future under any stabilization scenario, so we don't seem to have a decent understanding of these processes.

Oppenheimer and his co-authors use a technique known as «structured expert judgment» to put an actual value on the uncertainty that scientists studying climate change have about a particular model's prediction of future events such as sea - level rise.

All in all the science of hurricanes does appear to be much more fun and interesting than the average climate change issue, as there is a debate, a «fight» between different hypothesis, predictions compared to near - future observations, and all that does not always get pre-eminence in the exchanges about models.

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.

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.

With all the talk this week about future climate — the global warming imagined by IPCC crystal ball models, that is — the focus for many is rightly on the gulf between predictions and observations that have taken place so far.

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...

Simulations of future climate are all based upon assumptions about future greenhouse gas concentrations and other factors that influence climate; this is one reason why these simulations are referred to as «projections» rather than «predictions.»

Climate scientists make predictions about future warming with computer models.

Most of the world's Anhingas live in Latin America, though, so data from those regions will be needed to make broad predictions about overall future numbers or potential colonization of the predicted expansion of summer range based on Audubon's climate model in the southern United States.

If you were to produce a chaotic model using the above, I would venture a prediction that the above former were the massive attractors about which we could make some decent predictions about the future but that the latter human produced CO2 inserted into our atmosphere would leave us with hopelessly inadequate and wrong predictions because CO2 contributed by man is not an attractor of any significance in the chaotic Earth climate system nor is CO2 produced by man a perturbation that would yield any predictive ability.

In particular, I hope that impugning models as a means of rejecting serious concerns about the future consequences of anthropogenic CO2 emissions will be seen as misguided — based on the false assumption that without models, the edifice of climate prediction will collapse.

To equate climate models with «bad» science must be understood to be an attempt to undermine any scientific justification for climate change policies because models are needed to make predictions about the future states of complex systems.

The reason I wondered about a prediction, is that in the film they talk about the past climate changes, if they are so certain that their interpretation on past climate is correct for the past, then sureley a prediction for the future would be a good test of their interpretation.

«In terms of how we should think about climate change prediction in the future, reducing emissions and so on, it really wouldn't make much of a difference.»

They are certainly the only factors that climate activists and alarmists want to talk about, and use to generate scary «scenarios» that are presented as actual predictions of future calamities — while they attempt to silence debate, criticism and skepticism.

But there are also similarities in that both the climate and returns on financial assets are complex, chaotic systems about which making predictions about future events are fiendishly difficult.

Yet evolution is an explanation of facts; dangerous man - made climate change is a prediction about the future.

In an article on «the perils of confirmation bias,» published for the Global Warming Policy Foundation (a group firmly opposed to policies that counteract climate change), Ridley suggested that «governments should fund groups that intend to explore alternative hypotheses about the likely future of climate as well as those that explore the dangerous man - made climate change prediction.»

On a very simple level, climate alarmism is all about making dire predictions of what'll happen in the future.

The weather prediction model used in this research is advantageous because it assesses details about future climate at a smaller geographic scale than global models, providing reliable simulations not only on the amounts of summer precipitation, but also on its frequency and timing.

«While this scenario is far from certain, it is critical that researchers understand the overturning process, he said, to be able to make accurate predictions about the future of climate and circulation interaction.»

«There has been over-claiming or exaggeration, or at the very least casual use of language by scientists, some of whom are quite prominent,» Professor Hulme told BBC News -LSB-...] «My argument is about the dangers of science over-claiming its knowledge about the future and in particular presenting tentative predictions about climate change using words of «disaster», «apocalypse» and «catastrophe»,» he said.

But evidence that climate predictions can provide precise and accurate guidance about how the long - term future may evolve is fundamentally lacking.

Since you keep referring to this letter signed by these 49 ex-NASA folks, criticizing Jim Hansen's GISS» climate modeling methodology used to claim dire future predictions re global - warming - as «Naive & / or DisHonest, This seems to imply that some or most of these 49 are [Naive??? 49 ex-NASA vets are naive about the inner - working of NASA??

While there is general agreement about the modern global warming trend (since 1850), scientific controversies increase as climate research moves further back in time, and predictions move further into the future.

Note: This analysis of the empirical data from January 1979 through 2018 is about the past, and it should not be interpreted as a future prediction of climate change / response.

At that time (and particularly the early to mid 70's) climate science was ambiguous about predicting the future, although the 1975 NAS report summarised the state of the science pretty well: that we didn't know enough to make useful predictions and needed to study more.

With a climate change - denying Trump administration in the White House and fear - inducing predictions of what our world might look like a few degrees warmer, it's understandable that many people have lost hope about the future of our planet.

It's a finding that should be reflected in current climate models to help scientists make more accurate predictions about future Greenland melt — and could become even more important in the coming years if cloud cover over the ice sheet were to increase as a result of climate change.