Sentences with phrase «sublect global warming models»

So how does this fit with global warming models?

I don't think that global warming models (which all of a sudden you seem so fond of) predict stratospheric warming, do they?

Dr. Antonino Zichichi — one of the world's foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter — calls global warming models «incoherent and invalid.»

However, global warming models also predict increased winds aloft across the subtropical, hurricane - spawning regions.

Because I advocated for a careful risk analysis of the probabilities associated with global warming models and projections he immediately casts me as someone who has no interest in conservation or alternative energy sources.

When the weathermen can't accurately predict the weather out more than a few days at best, why should anyone believe that global warming models going out even several decades are reliable?

There has never been a global warming model that has taken into account the leading contributor to global warming.

If the global warming models are reliable, why has the earth's temperature been in decline in the past 10 years?

* «Princeton physicist Will Happer's WSJ op - ed: «Global warming models are wrong again»: The former federal official calls climate's «observed response» to more CO2 «not in good agreement with model predictions.»»

And you might recall that his March 27 Wall Street Journal op - ed «Global warming models are wrong again» called the climate's «observed response» to more CO2 «not in good agreement with model predictions.»

Nevertheless I say again that I'd like to see someone of stature in science or someone of high visibility in the national media challenge Professor Happer specifically about the contrast between the very headline on his WSJ op - ed («Global warming models are wrong again») and what's asserted by this RC posting (and by Lazarus @ 31) about the retrospective reliability of Hansen et al. (1981).

Marco @ 47: I see what you mean about the general relevance and importance of the posting that you cited, but I'd still like to see someone of stature in science or someone of high visibility in the national media challenge Professor Happer specifically about the contrast between the very headline on his WSJ op - ed («Global warming models are wrong again») and what's asserted by this RC posting (and by Lazarus @ 31) about the retrospective reliability of Hansen et al. (1981).

Since 1970 we have seen exactly what global warming models predict — more rainfall in the North - West and some desert areas and less in the major agricultural regions.

In response to David Bell's comment, I agree that if the heat island effect is 40 % then global warming models need major reconsideration.

The global warming models presented by Hansen (2006) are shown in Figure 1.

But, it seems in a race to find evidence of the global sea level rises predicted by man - made global warming models, a number of researchers have underestimated how problematic the data is.

Some of these researchers had been predicting an acceleration on the basis of their man - made global warming models, e.g., one of the authors of Church & White, 2006 had already been predicting an acceleration in Church et al., 1991 (Open access).

The temperature increase is in line with predictions of global warming models.

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.

The assumptions of the global warming models must be publicly, repeatedly, and systematically critiqued, and when they do not stand up to scrutiny, these assumptions and policies must be rejected by the United States government outright.

Please reevaluate and update us on the accuracy and significance of global warming models in light of this evidence and the need for very high significance in climate science to justify major changes in public policy.

Should we sublect global warming models and modelers to similar scrutiny of methods and motives?

And further, none of the existing global warming models of which I am aware accounted for the sudden increase in melt over the last 5 years.

More than a dozen climate experts, including professors at the most prestigious universities in the world and scientists who worked with the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), also told The New American in recent months that the global warming models were deeply flawed at best.

Dismissing the models as a social construct does her argument no favour and casts doubt on her ability to understand the caveats and uncertainties inherent in global warming models.

1) Connection to global warming The model simulates an increase in Northern England precipitation in winter, but the trend is not as large as the observed one.

The fact that the global warming models are not able to make accurate predictions and moreover give different results should give pause to anyone who thinks that we understand the physics of global warming.

Someone I know who is a climate change skeptic asked why I had no faith in the models that showed Fukushima would be OK but I did have faith in global warming models.

I replied that it was simple: the nuclear plant models were about control whereas the global warming models merely had to convince me we'd get into an uncontrollable state.

It took nearly no time to adjust from a catastrophic global cooling model to a catastrophic global warming model.

The natural phenomenon I have described in my essay and associated graphics and movies (see http://www.duncansteel.com/archives/category/climate-change) is a surprising omission from previous climate change / global warming modelling.

In order to provide a baseline proof of concept for the global warming models it is necessary to show that without AGW they would show a temperature rise, a peak, and falling temperature into the next glacial.

Therefore, this study casts considerable doubt on all current global warming models, which rely on this data as validation.»

It is far more important to deploy order of magnitude more accurate instrumentation than waste money on meaningless global warming models whose 35 year predictions are 300 % too hot.

And, rather than magic windows into our future, the only use for academia's mathematical global warming models are their utility in helping to give power to the most unaccountable, unworldly and fundamentally dishonest sector of Western society.

Thanks for the long and tedious explanation illustrating the often ignored fact that all Global Warming models / constructs / etc, still can not avoid arbitrary (human) assumption in order to make a statistical in the absence of defined and demonstrable causal mechanisms.

Global warming models use data from multiple locations over long periods of time.

Global warming models attempt to be as accurate as possible.

The idea was that if an event is far out of the ordinary but fits a global warming model very closely, a degree of probability can be assigned regarding the likelihood that the event was in fact due to global warming.

Does anyone have an update of the first graph, or any recent data comparison with 10 — 30 year old global warming models?

Climate scientists say Australia... epitomizes the «accelerated climate crisis» that global warming models have forecast.

He has used this platform to attack «bogus global warming models,» and argue that our vast oil supply can «make America great again.»

Not exact matches

The article equivocates on whether we can assign global warming to this particular phenomenon, but there is little doubt that our social systems, beliefs, mental models, and infrastructure is contributing to overall global warming.

Any carbon dioxide emissions that may contribute to global warming — and recent climate modelling puts earlier scary predictions into question — have plateaued.

Revelations is clearly very accurate, clearly agreeing with moden science computer models regarding global warming predictions, what will happen when a large asteroid strikes (note the word «when») and many other things unknown to science prior to the 21st Century.

Despite the «science is settled» and «consensus» claims of the global - warming alarmists, the fear of catastrophic consequences from rising temperatures has been driven not so much by good science as by computer models and adroit publicity fed to a compliant media.

However, the recent period of cooling does suggest that either manmade global warming may be smaller or that the impact of other factors may be greater than climate models have so far assumed.

KATHARINE HAYHOE is an atmospheric scientist at Texas Tech University, where she studies climate modeling and the regional impacts of global warming.

No model, however, has predicted the global warming hiatus which climate researchers have observed since the turn of the millennium.

The emergence dates calculated by the model matched the historical records, strongly suggesting that global warming has driven the changes in emergence timing.