Sentences with phrase «computer model projections of»

When these past megadroughts are compared side - by - side with computer model projections of the 21st century, both the moderate and business - as - usual emissions scenarios are drier, and the risk of droughts lasting 30 years or longer increases significantly.

The impacts I listed above are not based on computer model projections of what things will look like in 100 years, they are things that the average person can see and witness right now.

Computer model projections of future conditions analyzed by the Scripps team indicate that regions such as the Amazon, Central America, Indonesia, and all Mediterranean climate regions around the world will likely see the greatest increase in the number of «dry days» per year, going without rain for as many as 30 days more every year.

As we learn further down this is based on a yet another study by parti - pris alarmists ramping up the climate change scare narrative using dodgy computer modeled projections of what might happen if all their parameters are correct (which they aren't).

Image above: A computer model projection of average daily maximum temperatures over the eastern United States for July 2085 (left) and July 1993 (right).

Not exact matches

The researchers may have slightly different numbers regarding the exact amount of ice remaining, but both agree that nature is outpacing projections from computer models and that summer sea ice in the Arctic could vanish by 2030.

Computer programs created 3D models of the glowing neurons and their projections, called axons, which can be half a metre long and branch like a tree.

Computer model projections show the likelihood for particularly heavy rains in parts of Oklahoma.

As the instructor / researcher, I modeled all of the technologies, including presentation, graphic organizer, desktop publishing and spreadsheet software, Web tools (webquests, webpages, weblogs), digital still and video cameras, and computer / video projection devices.

These included Araya Rasdjarmrearnsook's «Two Planets series,» in which members of Thai villages discuss several well - known European paintings; Barry X Ball's seductive computer - and hand - modeled heads; and Eija - Liisa Ahtila's stunning three - screen video projection, The Annunciation, which retells the biblical story using professional actors and amateurs from a center for social services.

Even if the study were right... (which it is not) mainstream scientists use * three * methods to predict a global warming trend... not just climate computer models (which stand up extremely well for general projections by the way) under world - wide scrutiny... and have for all intents and purposes already correctly predicted the future -(Hansen 1988 in front of Congress and Pinatubo).

The theory of anthropogenic global warming rests solely on computer - model projections into the future.

As a result, computer models can not make «predictions» they only provide «projections» which are based on the value of the assumptions made in their preparation.

Even more significant is the ridiculous reliance placed on modeling, where unproven input notions about the likely effects of CO2 are circularly spat out by the computer as multi-decade warming projections.

Are all of the alarmist warmistas in a world - at - risk tizzy over projections of catastrophe by computer models, or are they engaged in making predictions of impending doom, based on models and all manner of other misinterpreted evidence and made up nonsense?

It won't be the side that bases its arguments on computer modelled projections and a Malthusian sense of impending doom.

The problem is in the argument, used quite extensively to give credential to projection in front of a public not used to numerical modeling of Chaotic PDE, that GCM are computer implementation of first physical principles, which makes the model inherently «solid».

Despite this, supporters of the anthropogenic global warming cause regard climate model computer projections as indisputable predictions, ignoring all else.

Comment (2 - 13): The Southeastern Legal Foundation provides the following reaction to the African rain - fed agriculture projection, which appeared in the Sunday Times (Leake, 2010a) and comes from former IPCC chair Robert Watson: «Any such projection [pertaining to African crop yields] should be based on peer - reviewed literature from computer modeling of how agricultural yields would respond to climate change.

The study found that, based on recent ice loss rates and the movement of the Thwaites Glacier in West Antarctica, as well as computer model projections, «early - stage collapse has begun.»

N (3) The computer climate models are not reliable or consistently accurate, and projections of future climate states are little more than speculation as the uncertainty and error ranges are enormous in a non-linear climate system.

Results from an irreducibly simple climate model,» concluded that, once discrepancies in IPCC computer models are taken into account, the impact of CO2 - driven manmade global warming over the next century (and beyond) is likely to be «no more than one - third to one - half of the IPCC's current projections» — that is, just 1 - 2 degrees C (2 - 4 deg F) by 2100!

Moral: The reliability of computer model projections are inversely proportional to a.) political pressure and b.) number of adjustable variables.

The IPCC AR5 provides a spaghetti graph of 95 computer model projections.

First, this claim is based on the usual IPCC mainstay of generating computer projections using woefully inadequate modelling, starting with dubious initial conditions.

In that report by Christopher Booker, headlined «Top scientists start to examine fiddled global warming figures,» he points out that a new team of five scientists has begun investigating the increasing evidence that the data being used for climate - change projections by computer models has been intentionally distorted by analysts wedded to the global warming hypothesis.

There are serious problems with projections of likely future temperature, especially as they have been produced from computer models.

Prashant Goswami, chief scientist at Bangalore's CSIR Centre for Mathematical Modeling and Computer Simulation and one of the lead authors of the IPCC report, admitted that these conclusions were based on climatic projections that were not as firm as those made at a global level.

Computer model projections show the likelihood for particularly heavy rains in parts of Oklahoma.

Such solecisms throughout the IPCC's assessment reports (including the insertion, after the scientists had completed their final draft, of a table in which four decimal points had been right - shifted so as to multiply tenfold the observed contribution of ice - sheets and glaciers to sea - level rise), combined with a heavy reliance upon computer models unskilled even in short - term projection, with initial values of key variables unmeasurable and unknown, with advancement of multiple, untestable, non-Popper-falsifiable theories, with a quantitative assignment of unduly high statistical confidence levels to non-quantitative statements that are ineluctably subject to very large uncertainties, and, above all, with the now - prolonged failure of TS to rise as predicted (Figures 1, 2), raise questions about the reliability and hence policy - relevance of the IPCC's central projections.

The scientific paper, entitled «Why Models Run Hot,» concludes that the computer models overstated the impact of CO2 on the climate: «The impact of anthropogenic global warming over the next century... may be no more than one - third to one - half of IPCC's current projections.&Models Run Hot,» concludes that the computer models overstated the impact of CO2 on the climate: «The impact of anthropogenic global warming over the next century... may be no more than one - third to one - half of IPCC's current projections.&models overstated the impact of CO2 on the climate: «The impact of anthropogenic global warming over the next century... may be no more than one - third to one - half of IPCC's current projections.»

The lack of warming for more than a decade — indeed, the smaller - than - predicted warming over the 22 years since the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections — suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause.

It is partly for this reason that climate change projections are made using climate models (see Learn about... computer models) that can account for many different types of climate variations and their interactions.

Even if the fingerprint were present, computer models are long proven to be inherently incapable of providing projections of the future state of the climate that are sound enough for policymaking.

Asked by CNSNews about the Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Easterbrook said they «ignored all the data I gave them... every time I say something about the projection of climate into the future based on real data, they come out with some [computer] modeled data that says this is just a temporary pause... I am absolutely dumfounded by the totally absurd and stupid things said every day by people who are purportedly scientists that make no sense whatsoever....

Average of the IPCC computer model projections for the tropical mid-troposphere versus three standard sets of observations: weather balloons, temperature sensed from satellites, and «reanalysis» data used to initialize the daily weather map.