Sentences with phrase «strong warming their models»

Not exact matches

When ocean cycle shifts, globe is likely to warm up When climate models were run that included the stronger winds, they were able to reproduce the slowdown in surface temperatures.

If global warming causes strong storms to grow even more fierce, as some climate models predict, that could trigger a self - feeding cycle that unleashes still more heat - trapping CO2 into the atmosphere.

A few of the main points of the third assessment report issued in 2001 include: An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system; emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols due to human activities continue to alter the atmosphere in ways that are expected to affect the climate; confidence in the ability of models to project future climate has increased; and there is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.

The models showed a general increase in extreme rainfall but the global warming signal was not strong enough yet to rise above the expected natural variation.

Observations and the high - resolution climate model CM2.6 show a strong relationship between a weakening Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) and an increase in the proportion of warm - temperate slope water entering the U.S. Northeast Continental Shelf, primarily through the Gulf of Maine's Northeast Channel.

A second study, led by Hailan Wang of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, used different model simulations and came to a similar conclusion: While a warming sea surface did make it more likely that a high - pressure ridge could form, the signal was not strong enough to explain its extreme nature.

Climate modeling shows that the trends of warming ocean temperatures, stronger winds and increasingly strong upwelling events are expected to continue in the coming years as carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere increase.

Using climate models to understand the physical processes that were at play during the glacial periods, the team were able to show that a gradual rise in CO2 strengthened the trade winds across Central America by inducing an El Nino - like warming pattern with stronger warming in the East Pacific than the Western Atlantic.

The explanation for this could be that the global warming is not yet strong enough to trigger the changes in precipitation patterns that climate models simulate,» reports Charpentier Ljungqvist.

Despite the strong warming trend of the past 15 years, worldwide temperatures have risen less than models predict, given the build - up of carbon dioxide in the air to 25 per cent above pre-industrial levels.

A new modeling study to be published in the Journal of Climate shows that stronger polar winds lead to an increase in Antarctic sea ice, even in a warming climate.

A synthesis of six such experiments with different models shows consistent hemispheric - wide atmospheric warming, strongest in the mid-to-high-latitude lower troposphere; an intensification of the wintertime Aleutian Low and, in most cases, the Siberian High; a weakening of the Icelandic Low; and a reduction in strength and southward shift of the mid-latitude westerly winds in winter.

Interesting features of this model are warm, inviting cabin trims, advanced safety technology throughout, Stylish, iconic look and bold profile, smooth, quiet ride yet responsive handling, and strong V8 truck performance

I have observed greater variations in Arctic Inversions lately, the tendency is towards less steep inversions, this is expected when the Arctic lower atmosphere warms during winter, if the models maintain a stronger inversion while its observed weakening this may explain why sea ice models fail, strong boundary layers appear to be collapsing.

So the problem has been principally with MSU 2LT, which despite a strong surface temperature trend did not seem to have been warming very much — while models and basic physics predict that it should be warming at a slightly larger rate than the surface.

Although there is still some disagreement in the preliminary results (eg the description of polar ice caps), a lot of things appear to be quite robust as the climate models for instance indicate consistent patterns of surface warming and rainfall trends: the models tend to agree on a stronger warming in the Arctic and stronger precipitation changes in the Topics (see crude examples for the SRES A1b scenarios given in Figures 1 & 2; Note, the degrees of freedom varies with latitude, so that the uncertainty of these estimates are greater near the poles).

Global warming experiments with a «20 km grid» (actually spectral) GCM of the Meteorological Research Institute (MRI, of Japan) shows intensification of strong TCs (consistent with the GFDL model study), and increase of the life time of individual TCs (as Emanuel suggests), but also decrease of the total number of tropical storms.

Some of the very wet years are caused by El Nino, a reversal of winds over the Pacific Ocean that has been going on every few years ever since there was a Pacific Ocean... People... will cite computer models predicting that El Ninos should become stronger or more frequent with global warming, but there are an awful lot of other models showing that they won't change or that they might even lessen in frequency.

«Future projections based on theory and high - resolution dynamical models consistently suggest that greenhouse warming will cause the globally averaged intensity of tropical cyclones to shift towards stronger storms,» Knutson et al. (2010); Grinsted et al. (2013) projected «a twofold to sevenfold increase in the frequency of Katrina magnitude events for a 1 °C rise in global temperature.»

Since (by then) not all models showed more warming aloft than on the surface (which I wouldn't call a strong sign of reliability in the models) the gap between models and observations closed just enough to make both statistically compatible.

These observations, together with computer model simulations and historical climate reconstructions from ice cores, ocean sediments and tree rings all provide strong evidence that the majority of the warming over the past century is a result of human activities.

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

You model shows GISS jumping ahead after 1998, I recall there was some dubious «adjustments» done around that time that sneaked in a little extra warming under the cover of the strong El Nino event.

Scientists proposing catastrophic majority anthropogenic global warming models (a.k.a. «Climate change») bear the burden of proof of providing clear robust evidence supporting validated model predictions of anthropogenic warming with strong significant differences from this climatic null hypothesis.

Peter Cox is the originator / author of the Triffid dynamic global vegetation model which was used to predict dieback of the Amazonian rain forest by 2050 and as a consequence a strong positive climate - carbon cycle feedback (i.e., an acceleration of global warming) with a resultant increase in global mean surface temperature by 8 deg.

The idea of a «carbon budget» that ties an amount of future warming to a total amount of CO2 emissions is based on a strong relationship between cumulative emissions and temperatures in climate models.

Not only have temperatures stagnated over the past 18 to 20 years — interrupted by a strong, naturally occurring El Niño — but computer models suggesting catastrophic global warming have continually overestimated global temperatures when compared with actual, real - world data.

They say: «We tell the models there will be strong CO2 - driven warming.

These predictions are correct, although these models failed to predict the strong warming we've seen over the antarctic peninsula.

However, I believe that I have made strong arguments in terms of the importance of natural variability in the attribution of late 20th century warming and in projections of 21st century warming, and in documenting that the IPCC models and arguments are inadequate in this regard.

However, given that the CAGW position doesn't rest on specific numbers, but is instead an unorganized collection of anecdotal evidence, coupled with heavily - tweaked computer models, unfounded assumptions about positive feedbacks, and a healthy imagination about possible future disasters, a lower warming number for the 20th century will simply be brushed over with claims about aerosols being stronger than previously thought, more warming still waiting in the «pipeline» or similar ad hoc «explanations» that keep the overall story alive.

However, future projections based on theory and high - resolution dynamical models consistently indicate that greenhouse warming will cause the globally averaged intensity of tropical cyclones to shift towards stronger storms, with intensity increases of 2 — 11 % by 2100.

As a caution, one of the four models examined (a respected model) predicts fewer strong hurricanes in a warmer world instead.

Most of the IPCC AR4 models simulate fewer synoptic storms overall, but more of the strongest storms, as the climate warms.

If models are not useful in a decadal timescale, such as they can predict a strong warming for a period of minimal or even no warning, then what use is there for models?

However, Solanki et al made the same point as we do: «This comparison shows without requiring any recourse to modeling that since roughly 1970 the solar influence on climate (through the channels considered here) can not have been dominant» (Solanki et al., 2003), and: «Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades.»

That is, as also seen in previous studies (Qu et al. 2014; Zhou et al. 2015), how TLC reflection covaries with temperature in simulations of the present climate is a strong indicator of a model's TLC feedback under global warming.

Lilewise, alarmists will probably place strong reliance on physics based models demonstrating radiative warming by CO2.

So, what if we use the statistics BEFORE the last 50 years to come up with a model of temperature variability, and then see if that statistical model can «predict» the strong warming over the most recent 50 year period?

Outside of models and in terms of empirical evidence they did present a strong correlation between cumulative emissions and cumulative warming.

A new modeling study conducted by Dr. Jinlun Zhang to be published in the Journal of Climate shows that stronger polar winds lead to an increase in Antarctic sea ice, even in a warming climate.

So the problem has been principally with MSU 2LT, which despite a strong surface temperature trend did not seem to have been warming very much - while models and basic physics predict that it should be warming at a slightly larger rate than the surface.

«A strong warming and severe drought predicted on the basis of the ensemble mean of the CMIP climate models simulations is supported by our regression analysis only in a very unlikely case of the continually increasing AMO at a rate similar to its 1970 — 2010 increase» 7

Basic theory, climate model simulations and empirical evidence all confirm that warmer climates, owing to increased water vapour, lead to more intense precipitation events even when the total annual precipitation is reduced slightly, and with prospects for even stronger events when the overall precipitation amounts increase.

Most of the warming in climate models is not from CO2 directly but from feedback effects, and the evidence for strong positive climate feedback on temperature is very weak (to the point of non-existence) as compared to the evidence of greenhouse gas warming (yes, individual effects like ice cover melting are undeniably positive feedback effects, the question is as to the net impact of all such effects).

The strongest single piece of evidence for the IPCC «mostly human warming» statement is the claim that the models can only replicate the warming using the GHG increases, which are posited to be of human cause.

The evidence from surface temperature observations is strong: The observed warming is highly significant relative to estimates of internal climate variability which, while obtained from models, are consistent with estimates obtained from both instrumental data and palaeoclimate reconstructions.

Elliott et al. conclude, based on the selected data below 500 hPa only that SH (moisture content) increased slightly with warming, but not at a rate sufficiently strong to maintain constant RH, as is assumed by the IPCC models in estimating water vapor feedback.

Without the correct SST, nothing works and with a low SST the models would all tend to have a warming bias, require stronger aerosols to match anomaly, pretty much everything that the models just are not getting.

The point being that the model demonstrates «hiatus decades» even under strong global warming.