Sentences with phrase «assumptions about feedbacks»

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.

I understand it's not an overtly direct extrapolation, but fundamentally it more or less still is if the underlying assumptions about the feedbacks are presumed to not only be correct but also operate proportionally the same to the forcing from the LGM as they do in reponse to future forcings in the current climate.

No photons are running about in the GCMs, just estimates, dodgy estimates of forcing and dodgy assumptions about feedback.

Not exact matches

21:30: User feedback challenged the LinkedIn's initial assumptions about what job seekers wanted from a product the company was working on in partnership with Microsoft.

Feedback's piece about Classic FM radio (10 October), which questioned Classic's assumption that all scientists are men, set reader Mary Mulvihill thinking.

Houman Harouni offered the most challenging and detailed feedback on my work and pushed me to question my basic assumptions about education and the roles I play in it.

Presumably the water vapour feedback in models is dealt with by determining / estimating / calculating the radiative forcing from water vapour and then making some assumption about the water vapour response to atmospheric warming (e.g. assuming constant relative humidity).

Far better this than running a dozen GCMs with funamentally different assumptions about climate feedbacks, plotting them on a graph and claiming that as a measure of the uncertainty in the behaviour of the real climate.

The no - feedback climate senstiivity of about 1 C for a doubling of CO2 is based on the assumption that this imbalance can only be countered by a change in the radiation component of how energy is transmitted through the atmopshere.

However, given that the CAGW position doesn't rest on specific numbers, but is instead an unorganized collection of anecdotal evidence, coupled with heavily - tweaked computer models, unfounded assumptions about positive feedbacks, and a healthy imagination about possible future disasters, a lower warming number for the 20th century will simply be brushed over with claims about aerosols being stronger than previously thought, more warming still waiting in the «pipeline» or similar ad hoc «explanations» that keep the overall story alive.

The steepness of these reductions curves is somewhat controversial because any calculation of a carbon budget which determines the steepness of the the needed reduction curve must make assumptions about when positive feedbacks in the climate system will be triggered by rising temperatures, yet these controversies are reflected in giving different probabilities about the likelihood of achieving a specific warming limit.

I wonder if you might invite some control theorists / engineers to ponder and post on the assumptions, and their limitations, about feedback in climate science and suggest how critical measurements might be made?

As specified by the RCPs, which encompass a multitude of assumptions about the future but entirely elide key carbon cycle feedbacks.

BUT, other important / related parameters — BRDF (bidirectional reflectance distribution function)-- albedo i. /: 00 solar local time Neural network based on CYCLOPES and MODIS / wrong ALSO Need to make assumptions about carbon lost via respiration to go from GPP to / Cox et al. (2000) Acceleration of global warming due to carbon - cycle feedbacks in a coupled / / JRC / FastOpt: http://www.fastopt.com/topics/publications.htmlhttp://www.fastopt.com/topics/publications.html 50 0 = water; 1 /

Models amplify that warming with assumptions about positive feedback (see the blue region of model estimates in the graph below).

Lackof accurate boundary conditions, insufficient understanding of key variables i.e, air pollution and aerosols and most of all wrongheaded assumption about the existence of positive feedback.

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.

Things like assumptions about linearity (which means more or less, they make the mistake of assuming that all forcings and feedbacks operate at similar ratios and strengths when the planet is an iceball as they do when Earth hits a rare warm phase).

I will then discuss the econometric forecasts they are founded on, the assumptions about CO2 sensitivity and feedback processes, and finally model tuning and their ability to match history.

The point is, there is no real scientific justification in assuming a strong positive vapour feedback in the first place as it all comes down to your initial assumptions about a) natural variation, and b) aerosols, both of which are acknowledged to be too uncertain to make such assumptions.

I see an argument between Curry and Colose (and others) here that seems to me to be more about defining what no - feedback means than about scientific calculations under a well - defined set of assumptions.

Based on their feedback, are you making assumptions about what the judge might know about your case?

Unfortunately, providing little feedback indicates there is little to say that is good about you (assumption: there is plenty to say that is bad about you).