Sentences with phrase «warming predictions do»

But the results I have been getting from the fully coupled ocean - atmosphere (CMIP) model runs that the IPCC depends upon for their global warming predictions do NOT show what Lindzen and Choi found in the AMIP model runs.

Not exact matches

The IPCC report does suggest that extreme weather events should be expected as the world warms but the prediction is couched in cautious terms and the risk is assessed as «medium» confidence.

He does point out that predictions of the impact of global warming made back in the 1970s named the Wordie and James Ross shelves as the first to go.

Moreover, their results were nonsynchronous: «Their analysis doesn't consider whether the warm / cold periods occurred at the same time,» says Peter Stott, a climate scientist at the U.K.'s Hadley Center for Climate Prediction and Research in Bracknell.

As can be seen your graph, our climate models make a wide range of predictions (perhaps 0.5 - 5 degC, a 10-fold uncertainty) about how much «committed warming» will occur in the future under any stabilization scenario, so we don't seem to have a decent understanding of these processes.

In no models or predictions of future warming scenarios does the Antarctic ice mass melt to any significant extent.

I find it confusing that the NWS Climate Prediction Center issues «climate» outlooks which have nothing to do with the subject of climate change or global warming.

The anthropogenic global warming argument does not hinge on the paleo reconstructions but on model predictions.

You've got the radiative physics, the measurements of ocean temperature and land temperature, the changes in ocean heat content (Hint — upwards, whereas if if was just a matter of circulation moving heat around you might expect something more simple) and of course observed predictions such as stratospheric cooling which you don't get when warming occurs from oceanic circulation.

Personally I don't want to find out what the consequences may or may not be [disapearance of Tibetan glaciers leading to starvation of billions, etc], but I think that we are a long way from deriving confident predictions of impact changes due to global warming from GCMs.

(1) What proof do government bureaucrat «scientists» provide that they are right about predictions of runaway global warming?

However, I don't agree that Al Gore is sensationalizing hurricanes — what Gore is saying is certainly in the realm of possibilities, and although Gore's general message is dead on (and I do think is being confirmed by events such as rapid arctic melting), I don't expect 100 % certainty in his predictions (especially since it seems that the lessening of snow on Mt. Kilimanjaro isn't due to global warming.

We know that when James Hansen made his famous predictions to congress in 1988 that he didn't know he was comparing a period, which was in the warm end of a sixty year PDO weather cycle with periods in the cool end.

NASA study explains why two types of climate predictions don't match: historical records «miss a fifth of global warming»

So, Jacob, if you can show me a theory that makes as much sense of Earth's climate and makes as many verified predictions as the current consensus model and which doesn't imply serious problems due to warming, I'll be the first to pat you on the back.

In fact, I have yet to see a serious cause of global warming mentioned where this doesn't manage to fit the prediction.

Also, if we say we know what's causing current warming there's a lot of work to be done explaining model failure on predictions.

In no models or predictions of future warming scenarios does the Antarctic ice mass melt to any significant extent.

T 54: if we say we know what's causing current warming there's a lot of work to be done explaining model failure on predictions.

It is a little surprising is that a paper that addresses the Walker circulation and wind shear doesn't specifically make any predictions about the future of El Ninos in a warming world (more frequent?

Sadly, Rahmstorf does not offer any falsification criteria for his promise / prediction / projection / guess that warming will resume.

OK - this is off topic and I know comments like this invoke just the hysteria I don't want to incite from skeptics, but are the weather patterns we are seeing in Iowa (intense precipitation) consistent with what one would expect from warming predictions?

We won't ever by able to effectively change anything with scary doomsday predictions, politically driven actions or half baked solutions... If we could just for a moment pull all of our hands out of proverbial the cookie jar stop with the politics and the anti-industry, global warming and end - of - the - world speak, and realize that our need is to focus on the things we ourselves can do to change our own shade of green, we would be taking one small step in the right direction.

After 25 years of close to a trillion dollars of treasure being expended, thousands of avoidable deaths from hypothermia related health problems amongst the elderly, the destruction of entire industries and large parts of some national economies, science, very expensive science at that has been sent down an innumerable number of dead end paths and rabbit holes in pursuit of the unpredictable non existent global warming and it's totally failed predictions of catastrophes always still to come but which never do.

Clearly, the causes of climate change over the last millennium have very little to do with attribution of modern warming, or for future prediction.

If global warming science is so «settled», why did global warming stop 15 years ago, contrary to all «consensus» predictions?

Difference between nighttime lows and daytime highs decreasing — no they aren't Warming of the planet since 1880 — same trend since LIA 40 % rise in Atmospheric CO2 since ~ 1800 — has little effect Underlying physics of the Greenhouse effect — you don't appear to understand them, and neither do modellers, which is why their predictions have been so wrong

Despite factors against warming in the 2000s, Smith et all predicted natural variation would suppress GHG warming in the initial years of their prediction, 2005 and 2010 were both warmer than 1998 on the two American temp series, both of which do well in comparison to the BEST land series.

They also need to take an aggressive role in calling out other scientists who make dire predictions but don't really understand the science of global warming or the uncertainties.

One does not have to be skeptical about the science of global warming to be skeptical of excessively «certain» long term predictions that involve weather and climate, the ultimate chaotic system that can not be accurately predicted.

If you were a nerdy scientist and could a great salary for playing computer games in an air - conditioned office, get in the media by making a scary climate prediction, and possibly become famous — maybe even getting to fly to an overseas global warming conference in Al Gore's private jet, and while doing all of this you can tell everyone you are working» hard» (9 am to 5 pm heh heh) «to save the Earth»....

If we are lucky, and it seems that we have been for two years so far, it will remain cold enough so the average person begins to doubt the coming global warming catastrophe predictions — thank you Mr. Sun and Mrs. Cosmic Rays, for riling up the leftist so they reveal their true bad character — with harsh character attacks on scientists who do not deserve them.

And by that, I don't mean computer models — I use computer models, and they are totally invalid at prediction — and I don't mean reports of «warming effects» unless you can show the mechanism that definitively links the cause to the effect, and shows that CO2 can be the only cause.

So, they didn't actually simulate sea level changes, but instead estimated how much sea level rise they would expect from man - made global warming, and then used computer model predictions of temperature changes, to predict that sea levels will have risen by 0.8 - 2 metres by 2100.

Although mainstream scientists do identify considerable uncertainties in their climate predictions, which are based on computer models, they are increasingly confident that global warming is a serious problem and often say that the uncertainties do not justify inaction.

Also See: Watch Now: Climate Depot's Morano on Fox News Mocking «Climate Astrology»: «This is now akin to the predictions of Nostradamus or the Mayan calendar» — Morano: «There is no way anyone can falsify the global warming theory now because any weather event that happens «proves» their case... Man - made global warming has ceased to be a science, it is now the level of your daily horoscope» — Gore [in 2006 film] did not warn us of extreme blizzards and record cold winters coming»

Categorising it as such might help in making a model that is amenable to prediction but we already knew it was 30 years warm and 30 years cool didn't we?

See, we didn't get that the failed warming predictions caused a rebranding to «climate change.»

The greenhouse theory has already made two wrong predictions First, that adding carbon dioxide to air will reduce atmospheric IR transmittance (it didn't); and second, that it will cause twenty - first century warming (it didn't).

So, next time you hear some BS prediction that we're all going to die from global warming I'd suggest you do some nosing around before you put that $ 20 into the Church of Global Warming's donation warming I'd suggest you do some nosing around before you put that $ 20 into the Church of Global Warming's donation Warming's donation basket.

More of that stuff in the middle white space... — «consistent with the estimated responses» — well, it may well be, but that doesn't prove much — remember that the models, so far as they go, do predict some things that don't appear to be happening in the real world (tropospheric warming, etc)-- the fact that one particular number happens to be within a (fairly large) range of predictions is not especially persuasive.

When a measurement is done at top of such variation, the result is that cooling has occurred while a simultaneous measurement at the low point of the prediction tells about warming.

You say «So why do many people not believe the Earth's surface has been warming, and what further evidence or predictions would convince them?»

The prediction of this is obvious: warming will continue at the same rate it's done since 1970, which means the plateau will not last.

Ah, but we do have predictions from climate scientists and we do believe that the climate has warmed.

AGW means that the heat content of the whole Earth system increases, but it does not make unique predictions on the relative rates of warming of various parts of the Earth system over periods up to a couple of decades.

Thus, these predictions show that continued solar decline will do little to alleviate anthropogenically driven global warming.

The global warming bandwagon would never have formed if scientists had had the balls to say to the politicians «Sure I can give you scary predictions about the world warming so much that civilisation is destroyed, but if I did that I would no longer be a scientist».

As can be seen, the satellite empirical evidence after 30 + years does not readily support the climate - alarmist AGW theory, nor the doomsday predictions of global warming hell.

He accuses the NYT of playing down the seriousness of global warming by ignoring: «the substantial number of climate scientists who believe that the consensus predictions are much too optimistic, including some of the leading scientists right here [at MIT] who have recently run what they call the most extensive modelling ever done and concluded that it's far worse than anticipated and that their own results are an understatement...» That would be the MIT Climate Research group financed by Exxon, Shell, BP and Total.