Sentences with phrase «discussion about climate model»

I sent Judith Curry (your coauthor) a link to my discussion about the climate models using the wrong dynamical equations with no response.

Not exact matches

Also, perhaps I'm misunderstanding the methodology you've described, but I find the idea of delivering short term predictions from AR4 models a little strange, based on previous discussions made here about the Cox and Stephenson's «sweet spot» of climate model simulations of ~ 20 - 50 years.

For those who want to follow the news about regional climate modelling efforts, there is a live streaming at the conference website, and through twitter with hash tag «#CORDEX2013 `, you can take part in the discussions (please indicate to whom you address your questions).

John, On the «Presentation: Precautionary Principle...» thread you told me that you think it's «unhelpful to conflate discussion of climate - science issues like the modelling of SO2, about which none of us here know very much, with discussion of economic projections, where we can have a useful discussion.»

I find concerned liberals are loath to talk about how consistently wrong climate models have been or about the «pause» in global warming that has gone on for over fifteen years, while climate skeptics avoid discussion of things like ocean acidification and accelerated melting in Greenland and the Arctic.

When we talk about future climate change, our discussion often stalls at the uncertainties inherent in scientists» statistical models and forecasts.

What's lost in a lot of the discussion about human - caused climate change is not that the sum of human activities is leading to some warming of the earth's temperature, but that the observed rate of warming (both at the earth's surface and throughout the lower atmosphere) is considerably less than has been anticipated by the collection of climate models upon whose projections climate alarm (i.e., justification for strict restrictions on the use of fossil fuels) is built.

The author's points on non-linearity and time delays are actually more relevant to the discussion in other presentations when I talked about whether the climate models that show high future sensitivities to CO2 are consistent with past history, particularly if warming in the surface temperature record is exaggerated by urban biases.

And the type of comparison they make in the paper you linked to is * not * comparing statistics of the models with statistics of the real climate, but looking for * actual correlations * between individual model realizations and the actual climate — that's completely counter to the discussion we've just been having about chaos and probability.

The climate scientists that worry about these issues don't post here (much - Jeff made a single post) so you aren't really going to see a meaningful discussion on the role of chaos or stochastic processes on climates, how that is handled in model building, and what that means in terms of model verification.

Finally, you talk about how to «build confidence» in the models... this is just like our prior discussion about building confidence in climate science.

First, how is this relevant to the discussion about trust in climate models or — to extend the thought — of anthropogenically caused catastrophe, considering that the sea has been rising at approximately the same rate for about 7,000 years?

In my discussions with him about climate modeling he has repeatedly made the same point, jstults: It is not that climate models are bad tools, they are just good tools for something other than what they are popularly used for, by IPCC etc..

That we tend to see much more discussion about global warming is I think because of the limitations of the climate models when they go to more regional and seasonal predictions and refinements of max versus min temperature trends.

About # 4 and # 10 of the main response to George Will, I think it would be interesting to start a discussion about the real performance of current climate models to «predict the past» (and thus the ability to «project the future&raqAbout # 4 and # 10 of the main response to George Will, I think it would be interesting to start a discussion about the real performance of current climate models to «predict the past» (and thus the ability to «project the future&raqabout the real performance of current climate models to «predict the past» (and thus the ability to «project the future»).

So I decided the right way to drive change in the climate debate is not to rant about it but instead to continue to model what I consider good behavior — fact - based discussion and a recognition that reasonable people can disagree without that disagreement implying one or the other has evil intentions or is mean - spirited.