Sentences with phrase «because climate modelers»

If you're looking for climate model - based studies, there are none as far as I know, because climate modelers haven't figured out how to model ENSO yet — even after decades of modeling efforts.

«If you're looking for climate model - based studies, there are none as far as I know, because climate modelers haven't figured out how to model ENSO yet»

If the Canadian model discussed in Gregory's article above is offered by its makers as a scientific tool, and it should be because all climate modelers treat their models as substitutes for the scientific theory that they do not possess, then it is an abject failure either (Gregory) because it can not reproduce historical data or (me) it can not meet the standards for scientific prediction.

Of course they couldn't because the climate modelers» computer simulations say so (e.g. Cosmic rays, solar activity and the climate by T Sloan1and A W Wolfendale, cited above by Ms Dale.)

Some flights will try to stay on a particular line of latitude or longitude, no matter what the clouds and smoke are doing that day, because climate modelers need data collected along a transect.

Not exact matches

Climate modelers do not include effects on land - based ice in these regions because they can not reduce them to equations, such as x amount of extra heat equals y amount of melting.

Because the CO2 levels were so high, «it's not surprising to see a negative impact, since it's like putting a bird cage near a smokestack,» says climate modeler Ken Caldeira of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, California.

If the models could reproduce the actual climate, that was only because the modelers had tweaked their parameters (for example, the numbers that described how clouds formed) until the models matched current climate data.

The disagreement with climate modelers arises because, first they do not understand error propagation and so reject its diagnosis, and second they don't understand the difference between a physical error statistic and an energetic perturbation, and so treat the statistic as though it impacts the model expectation values — in this case air temperature.

So to be generous I'll just call climate modelers childish because in a way they are right.

So the assertion that climate modeling is «not science», because, given the unsupported assertion that climate modelers don't look for counter-evidence, it doesn't fit some abstract idea of what science should be, is worth pretty much nothing.

I also do this with the wish that one or more expert climate modelers were undertaking this task instead, because their input would be valuable in response to some specific comments made earlier.

And in fact when you look at the scientific literature, it's an interesting disconnect because the modelers who study emissions and how to control those emissions are generally much more comfortable setting goals in terms of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas concentrations because that comes more or less directly out of their models and is much more proximate or more closely connected to what humans actually do to screw up the climate in the first place, which is emit these greenhouse gases.

Climate modelers are scrambling to try to save their creations» reputations because the one thing that they do not want to have to admit is that they exaggerate the amount that the earth's average temperature will increase as a result of human greenhouse gas emissions.

I can easily see a climate modeler adjusting their parameters based on a model run with too much negative internal variability because the results were too far from that expected.

ENSO only appears as noise in climate models, because the models simulate it so poorly and because the modelers neuter it by eliminating ENSO «skewness».

Modelers may claim that these feedbacks are not arbitrary because they must exist, otherwise real climate would fuctuate madly.

«Because it's been pretty much the same for 25 years, it almost never gets reported,» says Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeler at NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

Climate modelers assume the cause must be greenhouse - gas emissions because they have no other explanation.

For good measure he also throws in a conspiracy theory by claiming that climate modelers only want to scare people, because they wouldn't get money for their research otherwise.

It would be cool in a way if this were really correct, because it would simplify the work of climate modelers.

Or more likely they will all end up extinct, because there isn't a modeler on the planet who understand the climate well enough to model it.

Orthodox climate modelers have failed miserably because they attempted to model a theory which had not been well thought out.

Not sure enough, I'd say, particularly because, as noted above, climate modelers have sharply raised their estimates of future warming in just the last couple of years.