Sentences with phrase «agree with observations very»

with respect to «It is seen from the figure with both natural and human forcing that climate models simulations agree with observations very well during the period 1970 - 2000.»

Not exact matches

FRA: Yeah I agree very much with those observations.

Minus some flashes from both Sead and Iwobi, and a workingman - like effort from Elneny, we learned very little... so here are a few of my observations from today's game, which highlight my concerns about this team moving forward... the fact that Mertz started this game, regardless of our injuries or those being «rested», should be a serious red flag for any true Arsenal fan... if Wenger is preparing to use Mertz with any regularity then the whole thing is a moot point because we are in deep shit... the fact is no quality team would ever have this tin soldier anywhere near there starting eleven except to groom their youthful players, who in turn should be playing in this type of game instead... I can only hope he was simply throwing him a bone for the FA appearance and for agreeing to stay on following the season, but I think the most likely answer is that Wenger's fragile relationship with the fan - base can't be ignored so he felt his experience was a safer bet... unfortunately not a positive choice for a team trying to move forward (same old, same old)

In fact, the calculation has been done very carefully by Hansen and co-workers, taking all factors into consideration, and when compared with observations of ocean heat storage over a period long enough for the observed changes to be reliably assessed, models and observations agree extremely well (see this article and this article.).

What this is saying I think is that no one had managed at that point to build a physics - based model which produces a very high sensitivity while agreeing well with observations such as the effect of the Pinatubo eruption.

I strongly agree with the observations in the article that assessing whether lending has been hurt by additional regulations or not is very difficult to measure.

In models run with the GISS forcing data, the «natural + anthropogenic» temperature evolution matches observations very well for a climate sensitivity of 0.75 °C / W / m ², which agrees with the value derived from palaeoclimate data.

As it happens, AGW is a very highly politicised issue, deals with uncertain predictions based on computer models (rather than observations) and there is a substantial minority of experts, including some IPCC contributors who don't agree with this position.

As illustrated by the discussion of our work, it is rarely appreciated that by artificially setting the needed numerical parameters it is possible to simulate a very broad range of climate scenarios, including those that will agree with observations of the past.

This model's forced response agrees very well with the observed surface temperatures averaged over the North Atlantic, so in this model one doesn't need to invoke internal multidecadal variability to match these observations.