«Since the weather prediction model simulated the frequency and timing of summer precipitation more reliably than the global model, its daily high
temperature predictions for the future are also believed to be more accurate,» added co-author Leonard Druyan, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University.
Not exact matches
«The overall
predictions for the
future of the area is of a more maritime climate, particularly warmer
temperatures and increased precipitation during winter,» Høye says.
The kinder, gentler model from the Hadley Centre
for Climate
Prediction and Research in the United Kingdom estimated a wetter, warmer
future: Rainfall may increase 20 percent to 25 percent, mean annual
temperatures could increase 2 degrees Fahrenheit by 2030 and 4 degrees by 2100.
I suspect that it looked OK in your view or you didn't check; «the paper i cited talks of the hiatus in global
temperatures for the past 20 years or so, that the Little Ice Age was global in extent, and that climate models can not account
for the observations we already have let alone make adequate
predictions about what will happen in the
future.
There are many who will not like this recent paper published in Nature Communications on principle as it talks of the hiatus in global
temperatures for the past 20 years or so, that the Little Ice Age was global in extent, and that climate models can not account
for the observations we already have let alone make adequate
predictions about what will happen in the
future.
Yet some kind of climate model is indispensable to make
future predictions of the climate system and IPCC has identified several reasons
for respect in the climate models including the fact that models are getting better in predicting what monitoring evidence is actually observing around the world in regard to
temperature, ice and snow cover, droughts and floods, and sea level rise among other things.
Only if we assume that things are going to go on doing the same sort of thing that they have been doing since good
temperature records began, do we have any basis
for future predictions.
This has significant implications
for the
future and indicates that the IPCC climate models were wrong in their
prediction of global
temperatures soaring 1 °F per decade
for the rest of the century.
2) CAGW movement type models never reconstruct any lengthy past history accurately without creative and unique adjustment of aerosol values used as a fudge factor; that is why models of widely varying sensitivities supposedly all accurately reconstruct the past (different made - up assumed historical values used
for each) but fail in
future prediction, like they didn't predict how global average
temperatures have been flat to declining over the past 15 years.
-- Muller believes humans are changing climate with CO2 emissions — humans have been responsible
for «most» of a 0.4 C warming since 1957, almost none of the warming before then — IPCC is in trouble due to sloppy science, exaggerated
predictions; chairman will have to resign — the «Climategate» mails were not «hacked» — they were «leaked» by an insider — due to «hide the decline» deception, Muller will not read any
future papers by Michael Mann — there has been no increase in hurricanes or tornadoes due to global warming — automobiles are insignificant in overall picture — China is the major CO2 producer, considerably more than USA today — # 1 priority
for China is growth of economy — global warming is not considered important — China CO2 efficiency (GDP per ton CO2) is around one - fourth of USA today, has much room
for improvement — China growth will make per capita CO2 emissions at same level as USA today by year 2040 — if it is «not profitable» it is «not sustainable» — US energy
future depends on shale gas
for automobiles; hydrogen will not be a factor — nor will electric cars, due to high cost — Muller is upbeat on nuclear (this was recorded pre-Fukushima)-- there has been no warming in the USA — Muller was not convinced of Hansen's GISS
temperature record; hopes BEST will provide a better record.
The consequences
for models»
predictions of the
future temperature can be seen in Figure 4, which shows that the mesoscale model's projections of mean maximum summertime
temperatures over the eastern US
for July 2085 soar into the 95 - 110 °F range, while the corresponding
predictions for the GCM range between 75 - 95 °F.
If our use of the IPCC's own
predictions of
future CO2 growth on the A2 scenario, and its own equation
for converting those
predictions to equilibrium
temperature, leads to
predictions of
temperature response that are different from those of the IPCC, then it may be that we are doing the sums wrong, in which case a true scientist would point out what we are doing wrong.
Going forward and without knowing the origin
for the need of the efficacy measures significantly different than unity, one might well conclude that
prediction of
future temperature increases from AGW would be the same with or without the efficacy measure.
Indeed, working with
predictions for future temperature increases and glacier melt rates generated by ten separate global climate models — all of which are also used by the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change - the team have concluded that these smaller ice sources will contribute around 12 centimetres to world sea - level increases over the remainder of the century, with this likely to have catastrophic consequences
for numerous natural habitats as well as
for hundreds of thousands of people.