To make mortality estimates, the researchers
took temperature projections from 16 global climate models, downscaled these to Manhattan, and put them against two different backdrops: one assuming rapid global population growth and few efforts to limit emissions; the other, assuming slower growth, and technological changes that would decrease emissions by 2040.
Not exact matches
«It would be like trying to predict El Niño with a sophisticated atmospheric model, but with the Sea Surface
Temperatures taken from external, independent
projections by, for example, the United Nations,» said Kalnay.
Stern's
temperature projections were presented as having been «
taken straight from a combination of the IPCC and the Hadley Centre.»
Just showing that
temperatures rose while TSI fell is too facile, but the Keenlyside
projections take this into account and warn of ocean heat eventually catching up again.
Earlier you said «This site has tiny handful of the predictions made and how they have failed» yet all the examples you have given appear to be about either
projections of global
temperatures, which I am sure others will pick up on if you want to push the issue, or the timespan we have available to
take action to avoid committing ourselves to future consequences.
Since CO2 has a logarithmic correlation to temp,
take a look at what the Paris agreement would do to the actual
temperature projections.
When we can not even agree on what the
temperature projections REALLY ARE (
taking into account all known feedbacks and current measurements), then how can we EVER expect there to be meaningful climate action when we keep spouting nonsense about how hot it's going to get?
A slightly more rigourous application of the steady - state formula to account for transient behaviour should
take his long wavelength
temperature projection to exactly where it should sit in my view — i.e. cutting through the peaks and troughs of the 61 year oscillation.
Taking advantage of that they can compare the Holocene
temperatures with the present ones and with
projections to the future.
Contrary to another claim made by Betts, we are conversant with that research and have recently contributed to it by showing that climate models do accommodate recent
temperature trends when the phasing of natural internal variability is
taken into account — as it must be in comparing a
projection to a single outcome.
Now I realize that comment still clearly
takes us inside of the range of IPCC
projections for
temperature increase during the 21st century but it definitely seems to be favoring the lower half of the range of IPCC
projections as the centerline was an extension of the 1980 - 2000 warming trendline.