Sentences with phrase «believe model predictions»

Knutti, R. (2008) «Should we believe model predictions of future climate change?»

Why should we believe model predictions of the future, when they can't even explain the past?

Jason Samenow and the Capital Weather Gang aren't forecasting nearly that amount because they believe the model predictions are too extreme.

I believe model predictions have been the subject of bet challenges before (and no one has accepted one to my knowledge so why would this group.)

Not exact matches

Time for some brutal honesty... this team, as it stands, is in no better position to compete next season than they were 12 months ago, minus the fact that some fans have been easily snowed by the acquisition of Lacazette, the free transfer LB and the release of Sanogo... if you look at the facts carefully you will see a team that still has far more questions than answers... to better show what I mean by this statement I will briefly discuss the current state of affairs on a position - by - position basis... in goal we have 4 potential candidates, but in reality we have only 1 option with any real future and somehow he's the only one we have actively tried to get rid of for years because he and his father were a little too involved on social media and he got caught smoking (funny how people still defend Wiltshire under the same and far worse circumstances)... you would think we would want to keep any goaltender that Juventus had interest in, as they seem to have a pretty good history when it comes to that position... as far as the defenders on our current roster there are only a few individuals whom have the skill and / or youth worthy of our time and / or investment, as such we should get rid of anyone who doesn't meet those simple requirements, which means we should get rid of DeBouchy, Gibbs, Gabriel, Mertz and loan out Chambers to see if last seasons foray with Middlesborough was an anomaly or a prediction of things to come... some fans have lamented wildly about the return of Mertz to the starting lineup due to his FA Cup performance but these sort of pie in the sky meanderings are indicative of what's wrong with this club and it's wishy - washy fan - base... in addition to these moves the club should aggressively pursue the acquisition of dominant and mobile CB to stabilize an all too fragile defensive group that has self - destructed on numerous occasions over the past 5 seasons... moving forward and building on our need to re-establish our once dominant presence throughout the middle of the park we need to target a CDM then do whatever it takes to get that player into the fold without any of the usual nickel and diming we have become famous for (this kind of ruthless haggling has cost us numerous special players and certainly can't help make the player in question feel good about the way their future potential employer feels about them)... in order for us to become dominant again we need to be strong up the middle again from Goalkeeper to CB to DM to ACM to striker, like we did in our most glorious years before and during Wenger's reign... with this in mind, if we want Ozil to be that dominant attacking midfielder we can't keep leaving him exposed to constant ridicule about his lack of defensive prowess and provide him with the proper players in the final third... he was never a good defensive player in Real or with the German National squad and they certainly didn't suffer as a result of his presence on the pitch... as for the rest of the midfield the blame falls squarely in the hands of Wenger and Gazidis, the fact that Ramsey, Ox, Sanchez and even Ozil were allowed to regularly start when none of the aforementioned had more than a year left under contract is criminal for a club of this size and financial might... the fact that we could find money for Walcott and Xhaka, who weren't even guaranteed starters, means that our whole business model needs a complete overhaul... for me it's time to get rid of some serious deadweight, even if it means selling them below what you believe their market value is just to simply right this ship and change the stagnant culture that currently exists... this means saying goodbye to Wiltshire, Elneny, Carzola, Walcott and Ramsey... everyone, minus Elneny, have spent just as much time on the training table as on the field of play, which would be manageable if they weren't so inconsistent from a performance standpoint (excluding Carzola, who is like the recent version of Rosicky — too bad, both will be deeply missed)... in their places we need to bring in some proven performers with no history of injuries... up front, although I do like the possibilities that a player like Lacazette presents, the fact that we had to wait so many years to acquire some true quality at the striker position falls once again squarely at the feet of Wenger... this issue highlights the ultimate scam being perpetrated by this club since the arrival of Kroenke: pretend your a small market club when it comes to making purchases but milk your fans like a big market club when it comes to ticket prices and merchandising... I believe the reason why Wenger hasn't pursued someone of Henry's quality, minus a fairly inexpensive RVP, was that he knew that they would demand players of a similar ilk to be brought on board and that wasn't possible when the business model was that of a «selling» club... does it really make sense that we could only make a cheeky bid for Suarez, or that we couldn't get Higuain over the line when he was being offered up for half the price he eventually went to Juve for, or that we've only paid any interest to strikers who were clearly not going to press their current teams to let them go to Arsenal like Benzema or Cavani... just part of the facade that finally came crashing down when Sanchez finally called their bluff... the fact remains that no one wants to win more than Sanchez, including Wenger, and although I don't agree with everything that he has done off the field, I would much rather have Alexis front and center than a manager who has clearly bought into the Kroenke model in large part due to the fact that his enormous ego suggests that only he could accomplish great things without breaking the bank... unfortunately that isn't possible anymore as the game has changed quite dramatically in the last 15 years, which has left a largely complacent and complicit Wenger on the outside looking in... so don't blame those players who demanded more and were left wanting... don't blame those fans who have tried desperately to raise awareness for several years when cracks began to appear... place the blame at the feet of those who were well aware all along of the potential pitfalls of just such a plan but continued to follow it even when it was no longer a financial necessity, like it ever really was...

The researchers believe this model better reflects the complexities of social species — in comparison to other models that do not consider the social organization of populations — and thus allows field biologist to test specific predictions about the effects of sociality.

Seeing himself as a strict empiricist whose hurricane predictions are based on decades of «crunching huge piles of data,» Gray is convinced that the atmosphere is too complicated to be captured in computer simulations, at one point fulminating that «any experienced meteorologist that believes in a climate model of any type should have their head examined.»

I also believe that hydrologists and meteorologists should be making efforts to account for climate change in meteorology and hydrology, modeling and predictions.

It's based on computer modelling, but we believe in this prediction quite strongly.

According to reputable analysts» predictions, Apple will allegedly release a standard 9.7 - inch model, another 12.9 - inch variant and a new 10.5 - inch version, although some, like those from Barclays Research, believe that the third variant of the iPad Pro 2 would have a 10.9 - inch screen instead.

We believe that substantially skillful prediction can only be achieved with models, and therefore effort should be given to improving predictive modeling activities.

Just to belabour the point; notice that my Jupiter prediction failed to take into account either the colour of the rocket's paint or the newly discovered earthlike planet around Alpha Centauri (or wherever) because my scientific judgement tells me that while this leaves me open to the criticism that my model is incomplete, I have good reason to believe that these things don't matter in the current context.

Is it possible that they could be detecting in their model the sort of shift that you believe may have occurred... or do you think that the fact that they and you make a similar prediction may just be coincidence?

The aspect of climate modeling that I've always had the most trouble believing are regional climate predictions.

As I believe was explained to Willis back when he did his analysis, if you want to compare the model predictions to the real world, you can not recenter to the real world mean.

Just as a hypothetical example: If climate scientist will tell me that recent pause in global warming is due to the effect of an inactive sun (which is the reality as reported by following) http://www.spaceweather.com and that they will go back and improve their models to account for this, then I would be more inclined to believe their other claims... Instead the IPCC doubles down on their predictions and claim the future effects will be worst than they originally thought?

Climate prediction models share one thing in common with them: even if they could be right, their creators will not want to believe them if predicted results do not correspond to politically correct preconceived notions of the establishment about how they should be...

Should we believe the UKMO model prediction?

Even more frightening is that the group of scientists that can not even agree on what happened in the past believe they can tell us (with some degree of certainty) what will happen in the future based on the prediction of a non-linear chaotic computer model.

I guess you don't believe them either since models don't do predictions.

Of course, you know this because you believe it, but please address the point about how can one even start to make any meaningful prediction of the future without a model and without models policy making and preparation is a hopeless task.

You seem to believe in some sort of «hidden heat in the pipeline» to explain why model predictions are wrong.

He accuses the NYT of playing down the seriousness of global warming by ignoring: «the substantial number of climate scientists who believe that the consensus predictions are much too optimistic, including some of the leading scientists right here [at MIT] who have recently run what they call the most extensive modelling ever done and concluded that it's far worse than anticipated and that their own results are an understatement...» That would be the MIT Climate Research group financed by Exxon, Shell, BP and Total.

«Since the weather prediction model simulated the frequency and timing of summer precipitation more reliably than the global model, its daily high temperature predictions for the future are also believed to be more accurate,» added co-author Leonard Druyan, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University.

Regarding TimTheToolMan's prediction as to how the IPCC and the climate science community will deal with the issue, the more one thinks about the IPCC's dilemma, the more one should believe that this is just what they will do, they will tune AR5's modeling in ways which get a better recent fit, sacrificing some historical fit to do so, and then they will produce a series of new papers which rewrite the history of ocean heat content to match.

The match between the temperature data and the model predictions is not as good as Mr. Nordhaus would have us believe.

The IPCC * itself * acknowledges that there has been no such warming now for the last 16 - 17 years; that no dramatic imminent change is seen to that for the next couple of years at least; that the previous spell of 15 years or so was precisely the duration of warming that underlay so much of the evidence cited for its alarms of the long and terrible global trend if forecast; that not a single model the IPCC had or has seems to have come even close to predicting what we've now seen; that the IPCC can only suggest possible explanations for all this so logically meaning it can have no reason to believe that whatever is causing it isn't going to continue forever; that more and more studies are coming in attributing global temperatures not to CO2 but instead other things such as solar fluctuations; that a number of predictions are now coming in that in fact say we are now in for a lengthy period of * cooling.

If both the models and observed have errors of + / - 1 - 2 C, why do we believe predictions that are ten times smaller than the errors?

They're not doing what they should be doing in a time of global crisis... then they fired me for wanting to do what I believed was my job — to evaluate and take account of climate changes on the hydrology within the NC states of the U.S. for modeling and flood prediction purposes.

1) Robert Malthus, who at the end of the 18th century, published his simple but penetrating theoretical econometric model, «An Essay on the Principle of Population», that has turned out to have been «off» in the timing of its predictions (but I believe, probably is about «correct» in predicting what we must expect, if some appropriate changes in human behavior fail to accommodate — «in time» — to the reality of the finite resources of our planet); and