Sentences with phrase «general prediction of the model»

«Our general prediction of the model is that treatment that dramatically alters the microbiome might lower [the] tendency for altruistic behavior,» Hadany said.

Not exact matches

Using the same data a logit regression model improves the predictive power of local elections to tell us who will win the most votes at the next general election, making correct predictions 86.21 % of the time.

The researchers also tested their prediction models on the validation set, and this resulted in ROC (receiver operating characteristic) plot points with an AUC (area under the curve) of 91.6 percent for general responsiveness, 89.7 percent for TNFi response and 85.7 percent for rituximab response.

The model is simple because its purpose is not an accurate prediction of how best to protect VIPs, but to see what general lessons we can learn about reducing risks and then apply them to more esoteric forms of risk.

Piantadosi and Kidd tested a novel prediction of the model that the immaturity of newborns should be strongly related to general intelligence.

Scientists are involved in the evaluation of global - scale climate models, regional studies of the coupled atmosphere / ocean / ice systems, regional severe weather detection and prediction, measuring the local and global impact of the aerosols and pollutants, detecting lightning from space and the general development of remotely - sensed data bases.

After a general trashing of various things including surface observations and climate models, he admitted that his prediction for the globally - averaged warming (of ~ 1.5 C by 2100) is within the IPCC range... albeit at the low end.

Neither of these predictions rests on general circulation models, which came in during subsequent decades and made more detailed forecasts possible.

Graham, R.J., et al., 2005: A performance comparison of coupled and uncoupled versions of the Met Office seasonal prediction general circulation model.

The Met Office Hadley Centre (Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research) climate change model, Hadley Centre Coupled Model, version 3 (HadCM3)[53], a coupled atmosphere - ocean general circulation model, was used for the time intervals 2020, 2050 and 2080 (note these date represent a time windows of ten years either side of the time interval date, i.e. 2020 is an average of the years 2010 — 2029, 2050 for 2040 — 2059 and 2080 for 2070 — 2089), under three emission scenarios of the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES)[54]: scenario A1B (maximum energy requirements; emissions differentiated dependent on fuel sources; balance across sources), A2A (high energy requirements; emissions less than A1 / Fl) and B2A (lower energy requirements; emissions greater thanmodel, Hadley Centre Coupled Model, version 3 (HadCM3)[53], a coupled atmosphere - ocean general circulation model, was used for the time intervals 2020, 2050 and 2080 (note these date represent a time windows of ten years either side of the time interval date, i.e. 2020 is an average of the years 2010 — 2029, 2050 for 2040 — 2059 and 2080 for 2070 — 2089), under three emission scenarios of the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES)[54]: scenario A1B (maximum energy requirements; emissions differentiated dependent on fuel sources; balance across sources), A2A (high energy requirements; emissions less than A1 / Fl) and B2A (lower energy requirements; emissions greater thanModel, version 3 (HadCM3)[53], a coupled atmosphere - ocean general circulation model, was used for the time intervals 2020, 2050 and 2080 (note these date represent a time windows of ten years either side of the time interval date, i.e. 2020 is an average of the years 2010 — 2029, 2050 for 2040 — 2059 and 2080 for 2070 — 2089), under three emission scenarios of the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES)[54]: scenario A1B (maximum energy requirements; emissions differentiated dependent on fuel sources; balance across sources), A2A (high energy requirements; emissions less than A1 / Fl) and B2A (lower energy requirements; emissions greater thanmodel, was used for the time intervals 2020, 2050 and 2080 (note these date represent a time windows of ten years either side of the time interval date, i.e. 2020 is an average of the years 2010 — 2029, 2050 for 2040 — 2059 and 2080 for 2070 — 2089), under three emission scenarios of the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES)[54]: scenario A1B (maximum energy requirements; emissions differentiated dependent on fuel sources; balance across sources), A2A (high energy requirements; emissions less than A1 / Fl) and B2A (lower energy requirements; emissions greater than B1).

There are examples where it is — for instance in the response to Pinatubo (for which validated climate model predictions were made ahead of time — Hansen et al 1992)-- but this is not in general going to be true.

However, the general circulation models are, at present, timeconsuming and expensive to run, and, despite the known shortcomings of the one - dimensional models, most available predictions of climate change have been made using the simpler models.

In the same paper in which he made his often - quoted «prediction» that doubling the atmospheric concentration of CO 2 would lead to an increase of 10 °C in surface mean temperature, F. Möller makes an almost never quoted disclaimer to the effect that a 1 percent increase in general cloudiness in the same model would completely mask this effect.

After a general trashing of various things including surface observations and climate models, he admitted that his prediction for the globally - averaged warming (of ~ 1.5 C by 2100) is within the IPCC range... albeit at the low end.

But the point is, such variability makes modeling even harder, for not only are the general parameters of the physical system necessary to get right, but, if prediction is a goal, actually TRACKING the actual realization Earth is taking is part of the job.

I think ordinary folks easily mush together models with parameters with parameter values or «settings» with exact predictions of runs under specific settings and with general predictions that pertain to runs over a range of settings (which settings, may or may not encompass the universe of plausibility or «reasonability» and can be its own source of controversy), etc..

(Paper abstract) Climate models may underestimate heat stored in ground General circulation models (GCMs), the primary tool for estimating the magnitude of future climate change, rely on realistic inputs to generate accurate predictions.

As far back as November 2013, the CPC and the IRI have predicted an elevated chance of El Niño (relative to historical chance or climatology) based on a combination of model predictions and general trends over the tropical Pacific Ocean.

In the 1960s, versions of these weather prediction models were developed to study the general circulation of the atmosphere, i.e., the physical statistics of weather systems satisfying requirements of conservation of mass, momentum, and energy.

«The Beginnings of Numerical Weather Prediction and General Circulation Modeling: Early Recollections.»

Speaking of Hansen's 1988 predictions and GCMs in general, Demetris Koutsoyiannis» paper has been published, evaluating 18 years of climate model predictions of temperature and precipitation at 8 locales distributed worldwide.

The problem, of course, is that while these different versions of the model might all match the historical data, they would in general generate different predictions going forward — and sure enough, his calibrated model produced terrible predictions compared to the «reality» originally generated by the perfect model.

Despite enthusiasm for the model outputs among mathematicians, the models in general produce predictions that simply do not conform to a wide range of experimental results.

The Process Study and Model Improvement (PSMI) Panel's mission is to reduce uncertainties in the general circulation models used for climate variability prediction and climate change projections through an improved understanding and representation of the physical processes governing climate and its variation.

Climate science in general and the climate models in particular lack conclusive empirical confirmation of their predictions.

«Their prediction of 1.35 degrees C [TCR] is, even if correct, only 25 % lower than the average of the general circulation models used in the IPCC 5th Assessment.

When the paper's four authors first tested the finished model's global - warming predictions against those of the complex computer models and against observed real - world temperature change, their simple model was closer to the measured rate of global warming than all the predictions of the complex «general - circulation» models (see the picture which heads this post).

Ferdinand, given that I like your points regarding the shortness of various time series in the Arctic (notwithstanding Steve Bloom's good suggestion that we look at the big picture), how many more years of warming trends that continue in general accordance with model predictions would it take to convince you?

Comparison of mid-Pliocene climate predictions produced by the HadAM3 and GCMAM3 General Circulation Models

If there are too many models for there to be some general consensus of what the prediction should be, then we do in fact revert to the problem of cherry picking.

It was not for practical weather prediction that meteorologists wanted to push on to model the entire general circulation of the global atmosphere.

There are examples where it is — for instance in the response to Pinatubo (for which validated climate model predictions were made ahead of time — Hansen et al 1992)-- but this is not in general going to be true.