Sentences with phrase «different observation models»

We were able to expose [our teachers] to different observation models, the purposes behind them, and we were able to gauge (through feedback) the preferred methods that teachers here had.

The CCRP model really builds on this and was borne out of the school collaboratively looking at different observation models with staff.

The CCRP model was really borne out of exploring different observation models and AITSL's Classroom Practice interactive was particularly helpful with this process.

Not exact matches

The search for such models linking two sciences having quite different observation terms would not be encouraged by the fictionalist position.

«Radio observations point to likely explanation for neutron - star merger phenomena: Data distinguish between different theoretical models.»

Combining observations from satellites and ground stations with climate models, they evaluated different factors that affect telescope vision, such as the amount of water vapour, wind speeds and atmospheric turbulence.

The problem is there are dark matter, dark energy, inflation, and there are so many sets of different observations pointing to the same new stuff, so it's very difficult, I mean, people try to come up with alternative models, but there is always observations which constrain them.

Mitchell's current analysis covered studies involving a different mouse model that did allow for the observation of p - tau.

Using many different types of analysis, they found that their model closely matched the satellite observations.

Faced with such ignorance of the nature of dark matter, astronomers try inputting different models of the dark matter into the simulations and see if the results match the observations.

Researchers looked at different ways Enceladus could be generating the heat to maintain the liquid ocean, producing models to find one that fits with Cassini observations.

To account for changes in observation times, the RSS group used a number of different approaches and models to try and estimate what the temperature would have been if the measurement time remained constant.

This involves a combination of satellite observations (when different satellites captured temperatures in both morning and evening), the use of climate models to estimate how temperatures change in the atmosphere over the course of the day, and using reanalysis data that incorporates readings from surface observations, weather balloons and other instruments.

The factors and caveats that impact all of these different recorders are also widely available in the literature, and more recently isotope - enabled general circulation models have become more widely used in sync with observations (e.g., see Gavin Schmidt and others 2007 paper)

Explanations are provided that enable to understand how observations of planetary movements provide evidence for the different models of the solar system.

Information is not the same as data, and we know that observations and models often represent different things.

The magnitude it actually had actually risen, how different these temperatures were from the 1940s, the conflict between model prediction / theory and observation, etc, were the issues the satellite data raised.

[Response: Uncertainty in the observations is very different from the uncertainty due to possible weather variations that might have happened but didn't (the dominant term in the near - future model spread).

In the global mean, there isn't much of an issue for the mid-troposphere — the models and data track each other when you expect they would (the long term trends or after volcanoes, and don't where you expect them not to, such as during La Niña / El Niño events which occur at different times in models and observations).

There are basically two key points (explored in more depth here)-- comparisons should be «like with like», and different sources of uncertainty should be clear, whether uncertainties are related to «weather» and / or structural uncertainty in either the observations or the models.

There is a «model» which has a certain sensitivity to 2xCO2 (that is either explicitly set in the formulation or emergent), and observations to which it can be compared (in various experimental setups) and, if the data are relevant, models with different sensitivities can be judged more or less realistic (or explicitly fit to the data).

Some of them are optimal fingerprint detection studies (estimating the magnitude of fingerprints for different external forcing factors in observations, and determining how likely such patterns could have occurred in observations by chance, and how likely they could be confused with climate response to other influences, using a statistically optimal metric), some of them use simpler methods, such as comparisons between data and climate model simulations with and without greenhouse gas increases / anthropogenic forcing, and some are even based only on observations.

And are those predictions in different cases then tested against observations again and again to either validate those models or generate ideas for potential improvements?

So the question is, what range of predictions can we get out of climate models by tweaking them in different ways so that they still match observations.

Many different models have now demonstrated that our understanding of current forcings, long - term observations of the land surface and ocean temperature changes and the canonical estimates of climate forcing are all consistent within the uncertainties.

We know for instance that the temporal / spatial variability in these in - filled regions is different to where there are observations, which need to be thought about when comparing with model variability.

As has been noted by others, this is comparing model temperatures after 2020 to an observation - based temperature in 2015, and of course the latter is lower — partly because it is based on HadCRUT4 data as discussed above, but equally so because of comparing different points in time.

All in all the science of hurricanes does appear to be much more fun and interesting than the average climate change issue, as there is a debate, a «fight» between different hypothesis, predictions compared to near - future observations, and all that does not always get pre-eminence in the exchanges about models.

This could have a number of different reasons, and the discrepancy could be considered not significant given the error ranges of observations and models.

The factors and caveats that impact all of these different recorders are also widely available in the literature, and more recently isotope - enabled general circulation models have become more widely used in sync with observations (e.g., see Gavin Schmidt and others 2007 paper)

A series of sensitivity tests show that our detection results are robust to observational data coverage change, interpolation methods, influence of natural climate variability on observations, and different model sampling (see Supplementary Information).

According to that chart of actual satellite and surface temperature observations vs. what was predicted by 90 different climate models, 95 percent of models overestimated... C3: Climate Model — Charts / Graphs C3 Headlines» climate - model - chartsgModel — Charts / Graphs C3 Headlines» climate - model - chartsgmodel - chartsgraphs

Three different ozone databases provide regression fits to the ozone observations, and are available for use in model studies of the influence of ozone changes on stratospheric and tropospheric temperatures.

One could take the outcomes of different starting conditions, or use of different model parameters, and compare them against observations.

«Using all these different observations that have been collected over time, it pretty much verifies the trend that we have from the model for the past 13 years, though our estimate of thinning compared to previous decades may have been a little slow,» co-researcher Axel Schweiger added.

In this study we examine the impact of SAL effects on ocean mass redistribution under different surface loads (land hydrology, atmospheric pressure, ocean dynamics), using a number of geophysical models and GRACE observations.

They are convinced by a «consilience of evidence» (Oreske's phrase) that includes the model's relation to theory and physical understanding of the processes involved, consistency of the simulated responses among different models and different model versions, and the ability of the model and model components to simulate historical observations.

Based on our assumptions of observational values, we conclude the AR4 model - mean or — best estimate ‖ of the SR (1.38 ± 0.08) is significantly different from the SRs determined by observations as described above.

Climate projections have been remarkably difficult to constrain by comparing the simulated climatological state from different models with observations, in particular for small ensembles with structurally different models.

The AR4 spaghetti graph shows the average of runs within a model for 21 models (A1B) and observations fall outside the range shown in Figure 10.5 A1B, giving a much different impression than that of the re-stated Figure 1.4.

Another point: — it's clear that an individual models separate runs can generate many different potential futures, so that you wouldn't necessarily expect the mean to match the actual mean of the individual future of the observations if the variance of the simulations was wide.

How hard would it be to just collect source code for the various models, and test them against different input parameters, as well as newer observations, and see which physics is likely to be more realistic?

-- the idea that the different models are drawn from some «model population» with a large variance that covers the observation is really hard to swallow.

Agreement between observations and model simulations of Sun» $» Earth system variability differs markedly among different regimes.

For the 2009 SEARCH Sea Ice Outlook, regional perspectives on ice evolution during the summer had been solicited, both to synthesize relevant field observations and modeling activities and to encourage communication between different sea ice experts and user groups.

The goal of the Sea Ice Outlook effort is to synthesize and integrate different observation and modeling efforts and to provide a broad - based assessment of arctic sea ice change.

And different models may project different outcomes even under the same assumptions, due to the variety of «equally plausible numerical representations, solutions and approximations for modelling the climate system, given the limitations in computing and observations» [AR5, FAQ 12.1, p. 1036].

Within the Outlook project, there may be differences in how each group obtains their area (e.g., model grid cells of varying resolution, sea ice charts, and satellite observations); each of these could produce a different value for ice extent.

Structural uncertainty is attenuated when convergent results are obtained from a variety of different models using different methods, and also when results rely more on direct observations (data) rather than on calculations.

The IPCC report acknowledges the scientific debate that continues over the issue of climate sensitivity and the different results between models and analysis based on observations.