Sentences with phrase «warming predictions out»

This is because it is almost impossible to get away with saying anything like «this could throw all of our global warming predictions out the window» in a scientific publication.

Not exact matches

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.

In fact, this is a good example of climate models making a prediction (warmer nights), and then having the prediction born out by the data.

Then, predictions are out the window with a genuinely uncomfortably warm day.

This prediction means that global warming is entirely overlooked and that blame for the end of the world is shifted away from the excesses of humankind and out into the cosmos instead.

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.

In making its seasonal prediction, forecasters cautioned that there are large portions of the country for which there are no clear indications whether it will be a warmer, colder, wetter, or drier than average winter, largely due to a fickle El Niño event that may have petered out too early to have much of an impact on North American winter weather.

Speaking of predictions, there's a special issue of Phil Trans A just out, on a 4 degree warmer world.

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.

I've been waiting for some philoopher of science to point out that, if there are no predictions for warming, there is absolutely no basis for the policies based on predictions.

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.

Castles and Henderson have pointed out that the storylines used to produce IPCCs predictions of future warming are based on ludicrously improbable economic assumptions.»

Scientists put out a new study claiming the worst global warming predictions could be 15 percent worse than models suggest, but that's based on a scenario experts say is increasingly unlikely to happen.

The bad news is that as more is understood about global warming, and as we compare what has happened to what was predicted by the average models (from the actual science, not from popular sensationalized media), the earlier scientific predictions have turned out to be too conservative, not as you say «too alarmist».

It's also good to keep in mind that CO2 is beneficial; more CO2 is better; any small warming helped along by CO2 is more than offset by other factors, and the claim that CO2 is in any way bad is simply an unfounded presumption at this point, since the models» predictions have all turned out to be wrong in their predictions.

If you're going to believe forecasts I'd suggest you check out Piers Corbyn or Joe Bastardi, who seem to have a much better record than the warmers who seem to base their predictions upon what they wish would happen instead of reality.

Apocalyptic predictions that the world could warm by up to 6C by 2100 with devastating consequences for humanity and nature are effectively ruled out by the findings.

On the other hand, it is fun to point out that according to the predictions made by the climate models that assume late 20th century warming WAS driven by CO2, their model HAS been falsified.

But he pointed out that even if the researchers» predictions are right and the planet warms just 4.1 degrees, this would nonetheless have a big impact on the global climate.

Perhaps by then it will turn out to be only 0.1 C warming / decade and that would be a considerable change from the dire predictions of today.

UK MET using their warm biased models to churn out never - changing predictions of mild winters and barbecue summers?

Predictions that global warming would wipe out polar bears are based on «scientifically unsound» computer models, according to a new study by a veteran zoologist at the University of Victoria.

To point out just a couple of things: — oceans warming slower (or cooling slower) than lands on long - time trends is absolutely normal, because water is more difficult both to warm or to cool (I mean, we require both a bigger heat flow and more time); at the contrary, I see as a non-sense theory (made by some serrist, but don't know who) that oceans are storing up heat, and that suddenly they will release such heat as a positive feedback: or the water warms than no heat can be considered ad «stored» (we have no phase change inside oceans, so no latent heat) or oceans begin to release heat but in the same time they have to cool (because they are losing heat); so, I don't feel strange that in last years land temperatures for some series (NCDC and GISS) can be heating up while oceans are slightly cooling, but I feel strange that they are heating up so much to reverse global trend from slightly negative / stable to slightly positive; but, in the end, all this is not an evidence that lands» warming is led by UHI (but, this effect, I would not exclude it from having a small part in temperature trends for some regional area, but just small); both because, as writtend, it is normal to have waters warming slower than lands, and because lands» temperatures are often measured in a not so precise way (despite they continue to give us a global uncertainity in TT values which is barely the instrumental's one)-- but, to point out, HadCRU and MSU of last years (I mean always 2002 - 2006) follow much better waters» temperatures trend; — metropolis and larger cities temperature trends actually show an increase in UHI effect, but I think the sites are few, and the covered area is very small worldwide, so the global effect is very poor (but it still can be sensible for regional effects); but I would not run out a small warming trend for airport measurements due mainly to three things: increasing jet planes traffic, enlarging airports (then more buildings and more asphalt — if you follow motor sports, or simply live in a town / city, you will know how easy they get very warmer than air during day, and how much it can slow night - time cooling) and overall having airports nearer to cities (if not becoming an area inside the city after some decade of hurban growth, e.g. Milan - Linate); — I found no point about UHI in towns and villages; you will tell me they are not large cities; but, in comparison with 20-40-60 years ago when they were «countryside», many small towns and villages have become part of larger hurban areas (at least in Europe and Asia) so examining just larger cities would not be enough in my opinion to get a full view of UHI effect (still remembering that it has a small global effect: we can say many matters are due to UHI instead of GW, maybe even that a small part of measured GW is due to UHI, and that GW measurements are not so precise to make us able to make good analisyses and predictions, but not that GW is due to UHI).

In a telephone interview today, Dr. Cicerone said he hoped the report, by spelling out the scientific basis for various predictions, would dispel some unwarranted skepticism about aspects of the warming problem.

They often want government to intervene to avoid what they claim is a horrible catastrophe for modern civilization in the making — which never seems to happen (consider, for example, how badly their predictions of future global warming have worked out).

I should also point out that there is a difference between a projection and a prediction, but given the short time scales here and the amount of warming «in the pipeline» already it's probably not germane in this case.

I'm not about to suggest any solutions here, but I will note that if we ask «is it warming» then effectively, as Judith points out, we are muddling a prediction together with an observation: are we in the middle of a continued warming?

Global warmers make a lot of falsifiable predictions that turn out to be false (Arctic / Antarctic sea ice anyone).

Sea levels are rising (ask the Mayor of Miami who has spent tax monies to raise road levels), we've had 15 of the hottest years eve measured, more precipitation is coming down in heavy doses (think Houston), we're seeing more floods and drought than ever before (consistent with predictions), the oceans are measuring warmer, lake ice in North America is thawing sooner (where it happens in northern states and Canada), most glaciers are shrinking, early spring snowpacks out west have declined since the 1950's, growing seasons are longer throughout the plains, bird wintering ranges have moved north, leaf and bloom dates recorded by Thoreau in Walden have shifted in that area, insect populations that used to have one egg - larva - adult cycle in the summer now have two, the list goes on and on.

He simply pulls prognostications out of his government - paid arse and fabricates a prediction out of out of whole cloth — i.e., global warming due to humanity's release of CO2 into the atmosphere in 10 years.

And they have been used to make a variety of predictions — including for example that with an enhanced greenhouse effect the upper stratosphere will cool while the troposphere warms, that nights will warm more rapidly than days, and more generally the Hadley Cells and dry subtropics will expand, the continental interiors dry out, storm tracks move northward, the tropopause rise, changes in ocean circulation.

As the companion article to this one points out, virtually every major prediction of catastrophe that global - warming alarmists have made about the coming state of the environment over the past several decades — from melting sea ice and flooded nations to loss of snowfalls and increased climate refugees — has proven utterly incorrect.

Former global - warming alarmist and «Gaia Guru» Dr. James Lovelock is once again doing combat with his erstwhile comrades in the «green» movement, dishing out scorn for the United Nations» Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which recently issued its latest dire global - warming predictions.

The strangest prediction of all seems to be that cold or warm pulses from a thousand years ago can be predicted to «pop out» at specific times in the future.

assuming what you say about skeptics changing topic as you describe is accurate, and at this point I do we are talking about data that is less than 200 years old, out of which extraordinary claims are made as to how that data relates to distant past and future trends tough sell assuming that all adjustments to the data are scientifically sound, It is very difficult for me to believe that measurements that have gone through so many iterations can be trusted to.0 and.00 in most other sciences, I doubt they would tough sell (the photo of the thermometer is downright funny) in terms of goal post moving I observe predicted heat being re-branded as «missing» a prediction of no snow re-branded as more snow a warming world re-branded to a «warm, cold, we don't know what to expect» world topped off with suggestions that one who thinks the above has some sort of psychological disorder extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence especially when you are teaching children that their world is endangered

So, although I have a lot of respect for Hansen, who has the track - record of saying things that seem a bit far - out at the time but later become quite well - accepted by the scientific community (such as when he pronounced back in the late 1980s that the warming occurring was almost definitely due to greenhouse gases), I think it is at best premature to give much credence to this particular prediction of Hansen's.

Even if global warming, in the main, turns out to be without merit, one can not reasonable deny its predictions merely because it's «inconvenient.»

He also points out that NOAA based its prediction mostly on data from April — and says more recent data show strong signs that waters off the coast of Peru are continuing to warm.

But if global - warming predictions bear out — with more prolonged droughts, more severe storms, more flooding — then figures of this magnitude will become standard.

There is not supposed to be an increase in snow covering a larger area of the earth (as he pointed out in a previous post) in global warming predictions.

I get what you are pointing out, that this snowfall increase defies the predictions of the warmists [or now, in their latest claim that more warming means more snowfall....

Out of 117 predictions, the study's author told FoxNews.com, 3 were roughly accurate and 114 overestimated the amount of warming.