Sentences with phrase «predictions of climate models as»

Those can be compared to predictions of climate models as Spencer has attempted.

Not exact matches

Yet some of these recent extremes, such as the summer in March, are way beyond the predictions of our climate models.

«As a result, some atmospheric circulations systems can not be resolved by these models, and this clearly impacts the accuracy of climate change predictions as shown in our study.&raquAs a result, some atmospheric circulations systems can not be resolved by these models, and this clearly impacts the accuracy of climate change predictions as shown in our study.&raquas shown in our study.»

Seeing himself as a strict empiricist whose hurricane predictions are based on decades of «crunching huge piles of data,» Gray is convinced that the atmosphere is too complicated to be captured in computer simulations, at one point fulminating that «any experienced meteorologist that believes in a climate model of any type should have their head examined.»

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.

Finally it is not true, as implied on Page 12, that «sole reliance on models to the exclusion of observed behavior» is the basis of future climate prediction.

Indeed, one of the first real - time predictions made by a climate model was for the cooling in 1992 and 1993 as a result of the Mount Pinatubo eruption in June 1991.

The 1988 GISS climate model included volcanic forcing as well as a prediction of what would happen in the future if a large tropical volcano went boom.

Specific examples of additional impacts include a reduction in capital equipment acquisitions across the entire lab with computing alone sliding from $ 7 million to $ 3 million, the elimination of NCAR's lidar research facility as well as the extra-solar planet program, delays in computer modeling and prediction efforts for both weather and climate, reductions in the solar coronal observing program, a reduction in the number of post doctoral appointments, reduction of the societal impacts program, and widespread deferred maintenance and delays in equipment and instrument acquisition and replacement.

While RealClimate has called into question the soundness of the paper's quite narrow conclusions of discrepancy between model predictions and measurements of the relative rate of warming of different levels of the atmosphere over the tropics, this paper is being touted by the deniers as showing that the models are wrong to predict any warming at all, and that predictions of future warming and climate change can be entirely discounted.

So, Jacob, if you can show me a theory that makes as much sense of Earth's climate and makes as many verified predictions as the current consensus model and which doesn't imply serious problems due to warming, I'll be the first to pat you on the back.

As the increasing levels of anthropogenic CO2 used for climate prediction are essentially predicated by the increase in economic activity world - wide and the effects thereof, has the IPCC's SRES model been adjusted in the light of the criticisms made by Castles and Henderson in 2002/3 and subsequently presented at the IPCC TGCIA meeting in Amsterdam, Jan 2003?

As a physics student very much used to operating on the «make prediction; test prediction» model of determining the reliability of a theory, I appreciate thorough discussion of realistic expectations for these climate models.

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.

Global temperature has in recent years increased more slowly than before, but this is within the normal natural variability that always exists, and also within the range of predictions by climate models — even despite some cool forcing factors such as the deep solar minimum not included in the models.

I encountered «great difficulties» from Jan of 2000 until July of 2005 as a result of my concerns with climate change effects on hydrologic modeling and flood prediction.

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.

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.

Not only is the true picture closest to Y0, the midrange estimate, and the one the representative of climate science presented as likeliest, but the data follows the model prediction if Y0 is correct very closely.

The scientistsâ $ ™ predictions also undermine the standard climate computer models, which assert that the warming of the Earth since 1900 has been driven solely by man - made greenhouse gas emissions and will continue as long as carbon dioxide levels rise.

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.

Climate alarmism is not based on empirical observation; rather, it is entirely predicated on computer models that are manipulated to generate predictions of significant global warming as a result of increased concentrations of CO2.

In terms of climate change model predictions, there is a high degree of uncertainty in both regions as to what comes next in an anthropogenic climate change scenario.

Of course, despite ongoing advances in computer modelling technology and the millions of dollars being channelled into the problem in the UK and US, among other nations, climate change predictions are far from an exact science, and few, if any, researchers engaged in the issue have claimed as mucOf course, despite ongoing advances in computer modelling technology and the millions of dollars being channelled into the problem in the UK and US, among other nations, climate change predictions are far from an exact science, and few, if any, researchers engaged in the issue have claimed as mucof dollars being channelled into the problem in the UK and US, among other nations, climate change predictions are far from an exact science, and few, if any, researchers engaged in the issue have claimed as much.

Natural variability makes it difficult to invalidate climate models that make predictions disagree with observations, such as amplification of warming in the upper tropical troposphere.

Do they actually think they can «model» something as complex as the climate and fluid dynamics of an entire planet and make such predictions accurately?

Just as a hypothetical example: If climate scientist will tell me that recent pause in global warming is due to the effect of an inactive sun (which is the reality as reported by following) http://www.spaceweather.com and that they will go back and improve their models to account for this, then I would be more inclined to believe their other claims... Instead the IPCC doubles down on their predictions and claim the future effects will be worst than they originally thought?

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...

Of course, this kind of uncertainty is why climate modelers don't presume to «predict» at all and get irritated when model scenarios are taken as predictionOf course, this kind of uncertainty is why climate modelers don't presume to «predict» at all and get irritated when model scenarios are taken as predictionof uncertainty is why climate modelers don't presume to «predict» at all and get irritated when model scenarios are taken as predictions.

We must also communicate the growth in model uncertainty as model predictions of the future advance farther and farther from the present climate state.

As the rate of sea ice decline speeds up it is starting to exceed the predictions of climate computer models which had previously suggested that by 2100 the Arctic will be ice free in summer.

Drift analysis is however necessary for climate predictions given the non-stationarity of the systematic error along the forecast time as the model evolves from the initial condition space to the model climate.

After years of promoting climate model quackery and publicizing the ludicrous scare predictions from models, the editors must have mainlined truth serum as they publish actual empirical evidence.

As anyone who pays any attention to what climate researchers actually write knows, neither «warm winter» nor «cold winter» is a claimed prediction of the models.

Despite this, supporters of the anthropogenic global warming cause regard climate model computer projections as indisputable predictions, ignoring all else.

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.

Very interesting, Mr. S. For those of us unfamiliar with the literature can you answer for us the most pressing question about this as a reply to Alson's question: are the paleoclimate runs referred to in this abstract performed by one of the models used for contemporary climate prediction and informing the global political process — i.e., one of those referred to in the IPCC reports?

Multi-decadal predictions of climate probabilities, as well as all climate statistics based on the global and regional and global climate models are deterministic model exercises.

As they have matured, climate models are being increasingly used to provide decision - relevant information to end users and policy makers, whose needs are helping define the focus of model development in terms of increasing prediction skill on regional and decadal time scales.

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.

It builds on recent improvements in models, in the reanalysis of climate data, in methods of initialization and ensemble generation, and in data treatment and analysis to propose an extended comprehensive decadal prediction investigation as a contribution to CMIP6 (Eyring et al., 2016) and to the WCRP Grand Challenge on Near Term Climate Prediction (Kushnir et al.,climate data, in methods of initialization and ensemble generation, and in data treatment and analysis to propose an extended comprehensive decadal prediction investigation as a contribution to CMIP6 (Eyring et al., 2016) and to the WCRP Grand Challenge on Near Term Climate Prediction (Kushnir et aprediction investigation as a contribution to CMIP6 (Eyring et al., 2016) and to the WCRP Grand Challenge on Near Term Climate Prediction (Kushnir et al.,Climate Prediction (Kushnir et aPrediction (Kushnir et al., 2016).

Numerical prediction of climate shifts using powerful climate models is now as accurate as tossing a coin — although perhaps we should not make light of such a difficult problem in climate science.

In my experience this is certainly the case if you talk about the simulations as predictions rather than projections — the climate models are not predicting what the weather will be on the 5th of May 2051 — they are providing projections of the climate based on emission scenarios and initial conditions.

The 2001 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report that governments accept as certain predictions of future weather says, «In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long - term prediction of future climate states is not possible.Climate Change (IPCC) Report that governments accept as certain predictions of future weather says, «In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long - term prediction of future climate states is not possible.climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long - term prediction of future climate states is not possible.climate states is not possible.»

In contrast to the sophisticated climate model predictions of runaway («tipping point») global warming, in reality, real - world global warming, as measured by satellites, has disappeared for over 16 years despite the gargantuan increases in CO2 emissions... (Ramez Naam denies this)

«The CCR - II report correctly explains that most of the reports on global warming and its impacts on sea - level rise, ice melts, glacial retreats, impact on crop production, extreme weather events, rainfall changes, etc. have not properly considered factors such as physical impacts of human activities, natural variability in climate, lopsided models used in the prediction of production estimates, etc..

So please stop using the impending «model predicted doom» as an excuse for your inability to match the trajectory of various global climate parameters with predictions.

- The climate models have become more sophisticated, but the range of warming predictions is as wide as in 1990.

Some apparent problems with the predictions of climate models, for example, have actually turned out to be due to problems with real - world data caused by the failure to correct for factors such as the gradual changes in orbits of satellites.