Astronomers have discovered a giant planet whose existence can't be
explained by current models of planet or star formation.
Not exact matches
A group of former and
current Arizona State University researchers say chemical differences found between rocks samples at volcanic hotspots around the world can be
explained by a
model of mantle dynamics that involves plumes, upwellings of abnormally hot rock within the Earth's mantle, that originate in the lower mantle and physically interact with chemically distinct piles of material.
The siblings, who
explain in detail to Kroc how their
model evolved to its
current state, are not interested in making money
by letting their name get dragged down
by subpar service in locations they can't personally oversee.
Another example would be to
explain why Arrhenius, who as a Swede was reportedly in favor of a little warming, obtained ECS results from his simple, laboriously hand - calculated
model of CO2 - driven global warming that are only a factor of two higher than estimates
by the
current ensemble of coupled GCMs.
Current peer review science,
by attempting to
explain away
model failure, in fact confirms that the science is wrong Guest essay
by David M. Hoffer It has become a favorite tactic amongst trolls to declare their belief in peer reviewed science.
In Phase II of AeroCom, a large - scale
model intercomparison was performed to document the
current state of OA
modeling in the global troposphere, evaluate the OA simulations
by comparison with observations, identify weaknesses that still exist in
models,
explain the agreements and disagreements between
models and observations, and attempt to identify and analyze potential systematic biases in the
models.
Using two different coupled climate
models with mixed - layer oceans, with and without OHT, along with a coupled
model with a fixed -
current ocean component in which the
currents are uniformly reduced and increased
by 50 %, an attempt is made to
explain why this may happen.