Sentences with phrase «underestimated natural variability»

The simplest reason for the «hiatus» is the models underestimated natural variability and / or overestimated anthropogenic forcing.

The IPCC models may have overestimated the climate sensitivity for greenhouse gases, underestimated natural variability, or both.

Let's assume these studies somehow greatly underestimated natural variability in the climate system, so that the «signal» of anthropogenic climate change has not yet emerged from the «noise» of natural variations (i.e., the above - cited «discernible human influence» had not been detected after all).

The only way the models can be wrong (in direction) is if they have grossly underestimated natural variability, and a global cooling trend is established in the long term observations.

Not exact matches

Likewise, we find that natural variability, this last decade warming on the low end compared previous decades, the lack of coverage in the Arctic and so on may have played a role in Lewis» underestimating transient climate sensitivity:

However, satellite observations are notably cooler in the lower troposphere than predicted by climate models, and the research team in their paper acknowledge this, remarking: «One area of concern is that on average... simulations underestimate the observed lower stratospheric cooling and overestimate tropospheric warming... These differences must be due to some combination of errors in model forcings, model response errors, residual observational inhomogeneities, and an unusual manifestation of natural internal variability in the observations.»

Conversely, if «climate sensitivity» for a doubling of CO2 is based on recent measurements and CO rates, and past natural variability is underestimated — as you've shown here — then this implies our estimates of sensitivity per CO2 doubling is too high, not too low.

«The hiatus proves that natural variability is underestimated.

If I say things like natural variability have been greatly underestimated, I can't turn around and then say I'm sure the recent pause in warming indicates much of anything.

Even amongst those IPCC scientists who believe that man - made global warming is a serious concern, there are many who believe that the relative role of man - made global warming have been overestimated, and that the role of natural climate variability has been underestimated

Some scientists believe in man - made global warming theory, but think that the natural variability of climate has been seriously underestimated, i.e., man - made global warming is not as urgent a crisis as is commonly believed.

Prof. Judith Curry (another IPCC author) also believes that the failure of the climate models to predict the «pause» in global warming indicates that the IPCC has substantially underestimated the role of natural variability in recent climate change, e.g., see here, here, here or here.

My reasoning: these latest estimates (unlike the 3.2 C estimate in AR4) are based on analysis of the actual past record with some estimates made for natural forcing / variability (with some uncertainty on whether these natural factors have been underestimated).

Volcanic forcing is more likely the driver of the pseudo-oscillations than just solar and since they, solar and volcanic, have similar frequencies, may be connected, so you can argue that their longer term impact is underestimated and not really natural variability, but there is a «oscillatory» settling pattern.

As this stage — it looks very much like warming from CO2 is overestimated and climate change from natural variability underestimated.

I agree that IPCC has underestimated the impact of «natural» variability / forcing, as evidenced by the past 10 - 15 years.