Sentences with phrase «telling about climate modeling»

I find the following section immensely telling about climate modeling: «The bottom line is that, although there has been some narrowing of the range of climate sensitivities that emerge from realistic models [Del Genio and Wolf, 2000], models still can be made to yield a wide range of sensitivities by altering model parameterizations.

Not exact matches

Penn State climate modeler Michael Mann talks about what computer models can tell us — and what they don't need to.

But early on Jenkins realized that the global climate models are too coarse to tell much about what's going to happen in the Sahelian zone.

How about telling everybody how these how climate models work in more detail?

Therefore, what Hansen's models and the real - world observations tell us is that climate sensitivity is about 40 % below 4.2 °C, or once again, right around 3 °C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2.

Climate models are only valuable if they can tell us something about the FUTURE.

To better understand what Kilimanjaro and other tropical glaciers are telling us about climate change, one ultimately ought to drive a set of tropical glacier models with GCM simulations conducted with and without anthropogenic forcing (greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosol).

Models tell us interesting things about possible future climate but in the main useful and interesting they are and not gospel.

R.E. Benestad (2002), Empirically downscaled multi-model ensemble temperature and precipitation scenarios for Norway, Journal of Climate Vol 51, No. 21, 3008 - 3027 R.E. Benestad (2003) What can present climate models tell us about climate Climate Vol 51, No. 21, 3008 - 3027 R.E. Benestad (2003) What can present climate models tell us about climate climate models tell us about climate climate change?

Here's my uneducated question — while I respect Gavin's comments about not abusing the science, it seems to me that many measurable indicators of climate change are (to the extent I can tell) occurring / progressing / worsening faster than predicted by most models, whether we're talking about atmospheric CO2 levels, arctic ice melting, glacial retreat, etc..

You didn't need to understand the physics of how a theoretical climate model works to understand the picture that our hockey stick was telling about the unprecedented nature of climate change; it represented a potent icon and it was attacked.

John, On the «Presentation: Precautionary Principle...» thread you told me that you think it's «unhelpful to conflate discussion of climate - science issues like the modelling of SO2, about which none of us here know very much, with discussion of economic projections, where we can have a useful discussion.»

The problem is not about the models but the climate science establishment's absurd defense of them and what they can tell us.

It's immediately clear that climate models are unable to resolve any thermal effect of greenhouse gas emissions or tell us anything about future air temperatures.

Tamsin is always banging on about «uncertainties» but I'm not burdened with any uncertainty, I am absolutely certain that the models and scientists can't tell us what the future climate will be like — good or bad.

Please tell me, if you know, what climate models are acutely accurate beyond about a decade.

(And I hate that phrase, but I have no more appropriate reaction) In what appears to be typical behavior of climate scientists, all he could do is vaguely tell me how I'm wrong about the level of hard science that proves a1 through z1000 parameters that went into these models.

# 62: What has been glossed over, or completely ignored in media reports about this study is that Tim Barnett told an annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science «climate models based on air temperature are weak because most of the evidence is not even there».

Please don't hijack the science, and tell people like me, who understand most of the science (other than the intricacies of climate models) better than 99 % of US citizens, and have followed the science better than 99.8 % of US citizens, that we don't know what we are talking about.

The answer lies in what models can and can't tell us about the economics of climate change.

The answer will tell us a lot about the validity of the model - based estimate for climate sensitivity used by IPCC (based on an «argument from ignorance», as has been pointed out)..

But running point scale intercomparisons of the sort Koutsoyiannis did tells you little about the validity of the model with respect to the purpose for which it is designed; but does underline the limits of global models for regional climate work.

And if the models are good enough to accurately model the effects of geoengineering, then perhaps we should trust what they tell us about addressing global climate disruption, namely that cutting greenhouse gas emissions is the best way to curtail overall climate disruption.

What does the Earth System Model tell us about climate change?»

In Part 2, we'll examine what Michaels» presentation to Congress should have looked like, had it been accurate, and what this tells us about the accuracy of Hansen's climate model and real - world climate sensitivity.

Those worried about the risks of climate change try to use the models to get best possible predictions, while those who oppose for ideological reasons any action tell that you should not give any value to those results.

Simple climate models are perfect in answering many questions, but they require too many unphysical assumptions when they are used to answer other questions, and they can not tell anything about some further ones.

Translating the above to climate science, if you tell me that in 100 years earth inhabited by your children is going to hell in a handbasket, because our most complicated models built with all those horrendously complicated equestions you can find in math, show that the global temperatures will be 10 deg higher and icecaps will melt, sea will invade land, plant / animal ecosystem will get whacked out of order causing food supply to be badly disrupted, then I, without much climate science expertise, can easily ask you the following questions and scrutinize the results: a) where can I see that your model's futuristic predictions about global temp, icecaps, eco system changes in the past have come true, even for much shorter periods of time, like say 20 years, before I take this for granted and make radical changes in my life?

It tells us nothing about the error propagation of climate models.

It's a global model so it doesn't tell us anything about climate equity or the distribution of mitigation efforts, wealth or improved lifestyles.

More simply, the model can not tell us anything at all about the physically real climate, at the level of resolution of greenhouse gas forcing.

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: Scientists can't even predict the weather next week, so why should we believe what some climate model tells us about 100 years from now?

A study of model's results tells us a lot about model's results, but nothing about climate.

What does your analysis tell us about the contribution of these natural factors to recent global warming, and how that compare with the results from climate models when they are run for natural forcings only to the present day.

Climate models which have not, and can not be validated, tell us absolutely nothing about what might happen to our climate in the Climate models which have not, and can not be validated, tell us absolutely nothing about what might happen to our climate in the climate in the future.

How about telling everybody how these how climate models work in more detail?

«I said that the models don't tell us much about how the jet stream is affected by climate change.

Collins, yesterday on Twitter: «I said that the models don't tell us much about how the jet stream is affected by climate change.

RealClimate is wonderful, and an excellent source of reliable information.As I've said before, methane is an extremely dangerous component to global warming.Comment # 20 is correct.There is a sharp melting point to frozen methane.A huge increase in the release of methane could happen within the next 50 years.At what point in the Earth's temperature rise and the rise of co2 would a huge methane melt occur?No one has answered that definitive issue.If I ask you all at what point would huge amounts of extra methane start melting, i.e at what temperature rise of the ocean near the Artic methane ice deposits would the methane melt, or at what point in the rise of co2 concentrations in the atmosphere would the methane melt, I believe that no one could currently tell me the actual answer as to where the sharp melting point exists.Of course, once that tipping point has been reached, and billions of tons of methane outgass from what had been locked stores of methane, locked away for an eternity, it is exactly the same as the burning of stored fossil fuels which have been stored for an eternity as well.And even though methane does not have as long a life as co2, while it is around in the air it can cause other tipping points, i.e. permafrost melting, to arrive much sooner.I will reiterate what I've said before on this and other sites.Methane is a hugely underreported, underestimated risk.How about RealClimate attempts to model exactly what would happen to other tipping points, such as the melting permafrost, if indeed a huge increase in the melting of the methal hydrate ice WERE to occur within the next 50 years.My amateur guess is that the huge, albeit temporary, increase in methane over even three or four decades might push other relevent tipping points to arrive much, much, sooner than they normally would, thereby vastly incresing negative feedback mechanisms.We KNOW that quick, huge, changes occured in the Earth's climate in the past.See other relevent posts in the past from Realclimate.Climate often does not change slowly, but undergoes huge, quick, changes periodically, due to negative feedbacks accumulating, and tipping the climate to a quick change.Why should the danger from huge potential methane releases be vievwed with any less trepidation?

If in fact, all 5 land use forcing runs are really valid model outcomes, it tells us that climate models don't have the often claimed property of «eventually forgetting about initial conditions.»

If the «real world run» contains some significant «contamination» that no other run contains (or that only a limited number of runs contain), then until he finds that run we can have no confidence that other climate model runs tell us anything about an important aspect of reality.