Sentences with phrase «seriously modelling climate»

Not exact matches

But to reiterate: the difference between climate sensitivity estimates based on land vs. ocean data indicates that something is seriously wrong, either with the model, or the data, or some of both.

In my briefings to the Association of Small Island States in Bali, the 41 Island Nations of the Caribbean, Pacific, and Indian Ocean (and later circulated to all member states), I pointed out that IPCC had seriously and systematically UNDERESTIMATED the extent of climate change, showing that the sensitivity of temperature and sea level to CO2 clearly shown by the past climate record in coral reefs, ice cores, and deep sea sediments is orders of magnitude higher than IPCC's models.

... it is sometimes argued that the severity of model - projected global warming can be taken less seriously on the grounds that models fail to simulate the current climate sufficiently accurately.

I do not doubt the sincerety and expertise of the climate modellers, but seriously question the policy actions that are based upon the models.

The message of my paper is that if the temperature has a large 1000 - year cycle, likely the climate models are seriously underestimating the solar effect on climate.

I suggested doing such a study a number of years ago, but my colleague Kevin Trenberth questioned the ability of climate models to deal well enough with moisture, so that the estimates of buoyant energy would be seriously questioned.

This viewpoint appears to have been driven into the IPCC by a strong desire for lower natural variability from the climate modelling community and was largely done off the back of the seriously flawed MBH paper.

Well, exactly this assumption, that the model climate sensitivity is about 3.5 °C, has been seriously challenged in the past few years in the scientific literature.

The climate models should use aerosol offsets which represent current best estimates, if they want people to take the AR5 declarations of model accuracy seriously.

People in the strong warming camp think you can make useful long term climate predictions from seriously flawed models.

Foley — who's worked with models for years — said that 6 degrees C is «implausible» and that most climate scientists he knows don't take it seriously.

(November 2, 2013) Scientists are now beginning to rethink their climate change models and are seriously discussing the possibility the earth is entering into a period of global cooling.

Seriously doc, I hope you do some thinking about what went on here, before you continue with climate modeling as a hobby.

A conclusion from all findings suggest that global data bases are seriously flawed and can no longer be trusted to assess climate trends or rankings or validate model forecasts.

A conclusion from all findings suggests that global databases are seriously flawed and can no longer be trusted to assess climate trends, or rankings, or to validate model forecasts.

Its hard to take climate model predictions seriously when such small errors can project twice the global warming — OR global cooling!

Our «Physics of the Earth's atmosphere» papers show that CO2 does not cause global warming, and that the current climate models are seriously flawed (summary here).

The vast majority of hard - science research scientists are now coming to the belief that the climate models used by the UN's IPCC and major climate agencies are seriously in error, based on this latest research and empirical evidence.

Exxon ought to consider more seriously the likelihood of a «2 °C climate scenario» and the implications for its business model.

Climate scientists have travelled down the climate model road, which is OK as long as they don't take the results too seriously, at least until they better understand that which they wish toClimate scientists have travelled down the climate model road, which is OK as long as they don't take the results too seriously, at least until they better understand that which they wish toclimate model road, which is OK as long as they don't take the results too seriously, at least until they better understand that which they wish to model.

As IO have extensively proven in my papers and by proponent of the AGW (see for example Crowley, Science 2000), the traditional climate models produce a signature quite similar to the hockey stick graph by Mann which not only simply disagree with history but has also been seriously put in question under several studies.

There's of course all the new solar physics models that have been released in the past few years which indicates the sun, not CO2, is the primary climate factor, and they are predicting global cooling as well (and having a difficult time getting published and taken seriously by the «consensus» holders):

With that extremely poor record of success, one must seriously wonder how it is that any person or government would believe what the climate models of today project about Earth's climate of tomorrow, i.e., a few decades to a century or more from now, and then seek to formulate policy based on that output.

I have too much respect for Allison to get into a spitting match with him over something that there is simply too little data to positively determine, too much corruption and money involved for those who support that mankind can affect and control global weather to any significant amount all while ignoring so many other factors such as solar winds, Sun spot activity and even the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, which is never a part of any of the seriously flawed climate models.

in re: The model study in Nature Climate change: The rhetoric from these failed climate scientists is always the same: «We're wrong, but we» rel important and you have to take us and our scary predictions seriously.Climate change: The rhetoric from these failed climate scientists is always the same: «We're wrong, but we» rel important and you have to take us and our scary predictions seriously.climate scientists is always the same: «We're wrong, but we» rel important and you have to take us and our scary predictions seriously.»

Given that hi tech climate models are having such trouble predicting the future, we seriously doubt his own ability to do so.

It is highly satisfying to see that climate modelers are now taking the quality checks of their models seriously.

«We are basically looking now at a future climate that's beyond anything we've considered seriously in climate model simulations,» Christopher Field, founding director of the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology at Stanford University, said at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

The implications of this study suggest that society needs to seriously consider model predictions of future climate change.»

I have read up (some) on how climate models work and why it is reasonable to take their projections seriously.

I'm not sure whether ~ 15 years is a long enough period to conclude that the model projections are seriously out of line with reality, given the existence of not very well quantified decadal and multidecadal internal variability in the real climate system.

The rebound effect — the phenomenon whereby improvements in the efficiency of energy services leads total energy use to decline and then rebound as consumers re-spend savings on increases in the same or other energy services — seriously undermines climate mitigation models that rely on efficiency for emissions reductions but ignore rebound effects.