Sentences with phrase «assumptions about climate models»

But they still haven't realized their assumptions about climate models are wrong too.

Not exact matches

Your statement on mistaken assumption # 5 about climate model projections being theoretically based rather than empirically based is well made.

Scientists unaffiliated with the study said it highlights a flaw in climate models and can help update their assumptions about the ability of forests to sequester carbon.

«Climate models can easily make assumptions about reductions in future greenhouse gas emissions and project the implications, but they do this with no rational basis for human responses,» Gross said.

Your statement on mistaken assumption # 5 about climate model projections being theoretically based rather than empirically based is well made.

Professor William Happer of Princeton, one of the world's foremost physicists, says computer models of climate rely on the assumption of the CO2's direct warming effect that is about a factor two higher, owing to incorrect representation of the microphysical interactions of CO2 molecules with other infrared photons.

PAGE09 and DICE2013 have different models of the climate - economics interface and different assumptions about social values, but they agree on what low climate sensitivity does in relative terms to the social cost of carbon.

More likely, the solar - astronomical forcings have been misinterpreted by the IPCC and by the climate models given the fact that those models made specific assumptions about solar forcings that are quite reductive and contradicted by alternative solar proposals also available in the scientific literature but ignored.

Even under optimistic assumptions about computer performance continuing to increase exponentially, we estimate that climate models resolving low clouds globally will not be available before the 2060s.

Attribution of any observed changes to climate trends are further complicated by the fact that models linking climate and agriculture must, implicitly or explicitly, make assumptions about farmer behaviour.

I don't think he's predicting a mini ice age, but he is adamant that the assumptions about climate sensitivity to CO2 built into the climate models are wrong and the models grossly understate the importance of cosmic radiation.

There is, however, a point to be made about exercising caution when evaluating the forward - looking output of a computer model, particularly when those models are used to advocate policy changes on the assumption that the computer model accurately simulates the earth's climate, and more particularly when there is no demonstrable track record of the predictive accuracy of the model.

Well, exactly this assumption, that the model climate sensitivity is about 3.5 °C, has been seriously challenged in the past few years in the scientific literature.

In particular, I hope that impugning models as a means of rejecting serious concerns about the future consequences of anthropogenic CO2 emissions will be seen as misguided — based on the false assumption that without models, the edifice of climate prediction will collapse.

Scott Adams may have been right about the economic assumptions in climate models.

However, its long been apperent that while climate models and econ models have similar levels of scientific validity, economists are far more willing to talk about assumptions their models make, when and why those assumptions might or might not hold, etc., than climate scientists.

As important as assumptions about feedbacks may be for climate models, it's important not to allow the complexity of the system to effect our interpretation of basic physics.

Current climate models do not properly account for cloud processes and have made assumptions about their behavior.

EPA's CO2 rulings are based on GIGO computer models that are fed simplistic assumptions about human impacts on Earth's climate, and on cherry - picked analyses that are faulty and misleading.

Would it be over simplifying to summarize your qualms about sensitivity pdfs as being too wedded to climate modeling, inappropriate prior distributions, and unrealistic assumptions of ignorance in priors?

David Stockwell's paper on how to improve the methodology for adjusting the raw temperature data or for adjusting for missing temperature data is distinct from computer modelling where an algorithm is employed based on various assumptions about AGW, CO2, clouds and the like to predict future climate «scenarios».

It's now clear that Mitch Taylor was right to be skeptical of sea ice models based on pessimistic climate change assumptions; he was also right to be more optimistic than his PBSG colleagues about the ability of polar bears to adapt to changing sea ice conditions (Taylor and Dowsley 2008), since the bears have turned out to be more resilient than even he expected.

Simple climate models are perfect in answering many questions, but they require too many unphysical assumptions when they are used to answer other questions, and they can not tell anything about some further ones.

Neither approach is likely to help them much if for no other reason than that both approaches will drive the debate into complex arguments about whose climate or economic modelling is using the best assumptions, data etc..

Alex — You make valid points about some of the assumptions, but the point I would emphasize is that kappa was relatively constant between the models and so TCR was primarily dependent on the feedbacks that determined climate sensitivity, which is why it is a fairly good surrogate.

But that doesn't change the fact that some of the fundamental assumptions behind using «GCM» «s to predict anything about the climate are invalid for the type of system they're modeling.

Standing in the way of climate policy that will be essential to this progress are models that estimate climate policy costs based on over-simplistic assumptions about current economic conditions.

► First, AGW model - makers refuse to change their assumptions about the climate's sensitivity to CO2 — natural or otherwise — no matter what reason dictates; and,

There has been no attempt to propagate uncertainty through the FUND, DICE and PAGE models, not to mention whatever front end assumptions about carbon and climate are being used as inputs.

What I would like to know is, what do global climate models say about the depth of the warm oceanic layer in the Gulf of Mexico and elsewhere near the U.S., both under the standard assumptions and under assumptions of greater runoff from Greenland which almost all glaciologists seem to find most likely.

While Christy only considered the possibility that climate models are wrong, Taylor considered three possibilities: (1) the surface temperature record is biased high, (2) a factor other than human greenhouse gas emissions is causing global warming, or (3) the «assumptions about greenhouse gas theory are wrong.»

The modelers begin with certain assumptions about climate that they build into the model.

Because the models have been built to test man's possible impact on the climate via greenhouse gas emissions, they begin with an econometric forecast of world economic growth, and, based upon assumptions about fuel sources and efficiencies, they convert this economic growth into emissions forecasts.

In this section, I will begin by discussing the models» basic assumptions about the climate.