Sentences with phrase «in computer model projections»

Not exact matches

With these factors in mind, researchers constructed a computer model and tested it to see how well its projections aligned with how the virus actually spread.

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 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.

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

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.

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.

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).

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.

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?

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».

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in 2007 that computer model projections did not indicate the weather cycle's strength or frequency would alter during the 21st century.

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.»

Projected warming and climate change due to CO2 only occurs in predetermined Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) computer models that exclude major mechanisms and whose projections are consistently wrong.

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!

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.

Thus, it is perfectly legitimate in science to check whether the computer GCMs adopted by the IPCC fulfill the required scientific tests, that is whether these models reconstruct sufficiently well the 20th century global surface temperature and, consequently, whether these models can be truly trusted in their 21st century projections.

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

It is well recognized that our inability to accurately simulate clouds in computer models is the largest uncertainty in climate change projections.

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.