Sentences with phrase «projection by computer models»

In that report by Christopher Booker, headlined «Top scientists start to examine fiddled global warming figures,» he points out that a new team of five scientists has begun investigating the increasing evidence that the data being used for climate - change projections by computer models has been intentionally distorted by analysts wedded to the global warming hypothesis.

Not exact matches

The researchers may have slightly different numbers regarding the exact amount of ice remaining, but both agree that nature is outpacing projections from computer models and that summer sea ice in the Arctic could vanish by 2030.

Computer model projections of future conditions analyzed by the Scripps team indicate that regions such as the Amazon, Central America, Indonesia, and all Mediterranean climate regions around the world will likely see the greatest increase in the number of «dry days» per year, going without rain for as many as 30 days more every year.

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).

When these past megadroughts are compared side - by - side with computer model projections of the 21st century, both the moderate and business - as - usual emissions scenarios are drier, and the risk of droughts lasting 30 years or longer increases significantly.

I say astoundingly because the IPCC projections were based on computer models that were fed by erroneous data supplied by these «scientists».

Even more significant is the ridiculous reliance placed on modeling, where unproven input notions about the likely effects of CO2 are circularly spat out by the computer as multi-decade warming projections.

Again, indirect land use change is based on false assumptions and twisted computer modeling that is not supported by the facts on the ground or even realistic projections.

Are all of the alarmist warmistas in a world - at - risk tizzy over projections of catastrophe by computer models, or are they engaged in making predictions of impending doom, based on models and all manner of other misinterpreted evidence and made up nonsense?

As we learn further down this is based on a yet another study by parti - pris alarmists ramping up the climate change scare narrative using dodgy computer modeled projections of what might happen if all their parameters are correct (which they aren't).

Results from an irreducibly simple climate model,» concluded that, once discrepancies in IPCC computer models are taken into account, the impact of CO2 - driven manmade global warming over the next century (and beyond) is likely to be «no more than one - third to one - half of the IPCC's current projections» — that is, just 1 - 2 degrees C (2 - 4 deg F) by 2100!

Thus, it is perfectly legitimate in science to check whether the computer GCMs adopted by the IPCC fulfill the required scientific tests, that is whether these models reconstruct sufficiently well the 20th century global surface temperature and, consequently, whether these models can be truly trusted in their 21st century projections.

Asked by CNSNews about the Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Easterbrook said they «ignored all the data I gave them... every time I say something about the projection of climate into the future based on real data, they come out with some [computer] modeled data that says this is just a temporary pause... I am absolutely dumfounded by the totally absurd and stupid things said every day by people who are purportedly scientists that make no sense whatsoever....