Results 1 to 3 of 3
  1. #1 Two Decades of Overestimated Global Warming (29 Jan 2014) 
    Ancient Fire Breather Retread's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I came to Texas as soon as I could
    Posts
    5,535
    Reference
    Fyfe, J.C., Gillett, N.P. and Zwiers, F.W. 2013. Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years. Nature Climate Change 3: 767-769.

    In a Commentary published in the Opinion and Comment section of Nature Climate Change, Fyfe et al. (2013) introduce their study of the subject by (1) stating that "global mean surface temperature over the past 20 years (1993-2012) rose at a rate of 0.14 0.06C per decade," and by (2) noting that this warming rate was "significantly slower than that simulated by the climate models participating in Phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5)." And so it was that they went on from there to look for a reason as to why such a discrepancy should exist.

    The first step of the three researchers was to compute average simulated global temperatures only at locations where corresponding observations existed - which makes a lot of sense, since a person doesn't go looking for oranges in an apple orchard - and in doing so, they obtained "an average simulated rise in global mean surface temperature of 0.30 0.02C," which was more than twice as great as the real-world measured rate of warming.

    But wait! Fyfe et al. report that the inconsistency between observed and simulated global warming was even more striking for temperature trends computed over the past fifteen years (1998-2012), for which period they say the observed trend of 0.05 0.08C "was more than four times smaller than the average simulated trend of 0.21 0.03C." And they also point out that the observed trend over this period, which was not significantly different from zero, actually suggested "a temporary 'hiatus' in global warming," further citing the studies of Easterling and Wehner (2009) and Fyfe et al. (2011) in this regard.

    And any number that is divided by zero really is infinite, which suggests that CMIP5 simulations of global warming over the period 1998-2012 could in this sense truly - but partially tongue-in-cheek - be considered to be infinitely too large, which is about as wrong as it is possible to be wrong.

    Additional References
    Easterling, D.R. and Wehner, M.F. 2009. Is the climate warming or cooling? Geophysical Research Letters 36: 10.1029/2009GL037810.

    Fyfe, J.C., Merryfield, W.J., Kharin, V., Boer, G.J., Lee, W.-S. and von Salzen, K. 2011. Skillful predictions of decadal trends in global mean surface temperature. Geophysical Research Letters 38: 10.1029/2011GL049508
    It's not how old you are, it's how you got here.
    It's been a long road and not all of it was paved.
    Live every day as if it were your last, because one of these days, it will be.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    eeeevil Sith Admin SarasotaRepub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Sunny,FL
    Posts
    43,417
    Better get nadin's opinion of this!!!
    May the FORCE be with you!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Ancient Fire Breather Retread's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I came to Texas as soon as I could
    Posts
    5,535
    and then take it to the bank.
    It's not how old you are, it's how you got here.
    It's been a long road and not all of it was paved.
    Live every day as if it were your last, because one of these days, it will be.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •