Sentences with phrase «match real observations»

Not exact matches

Within their paper, the pair details their development of a new algorithm that simulates the evaporation of water at the molecular scale that matches theoretical, numerical, and real - world observations.

So the jury is still out: Scientists simply don't have enough observations of real termites to match them to the model.

If real - world observations don't match the models forecasting catastrophic species loss, why do you nonetheless side with models anyway?

Your statement that «Thus it is natural to look at the real world and see whether there is evidence that it behaves in the same way (and it appears to, since model hindcasts of past changes match observations very well)» seems to indicate that you think there will be no changes in ocean circulation or land use trends, nor any subsequent changes in cloud responses thereto or other atmospheric circulation.

Thus it is natural to look at the real world and see whether there is evidence that it behaves in the same way (and it appears to, since model hindcasts of past changes match observations very well).

A simple comparison of observations with projections based on real world climate forcings shows a very close match, especially if we take natural unforced variability into account as well (mainly ENSO).

Your statement that «Thus it is natural to look at the real world and see whether there is evidence that it behaves in the same way (and it appears to, since model hindcasts of past changes match observations very well)» seems to indicate that you think there will be no changes in ocean circulation or land use trends, nor any subsequent changes in cloud responses thereto or other atmospheric circulation.

Instead, we have a very good idea of what GHGs do to radiation, we have a reasonable idea of what aerosols and land use changes do, and we can look for fingerprints in the real world observations that match what we expect to have happened.

In our 2010 SIO estimate, it was found that the CFSv2 sea ice extent seemed too excessive (due to too thick ice in the initial condition), and the extent confined within 60 cm of ice thickness matches the real time observation.

That could explain the resolute failure of real world observations to match model expectations and the failure to appear of the anticipated tropospheric «hot spot» that was expected as a marker for AGW.

For me that was as powerful as Richard Feyman's statement that no matter how beautiful a theory is, if the real world does not match the theory, then it is the theory that must go, not the observations.

It shows up well in their Figure 1a about which they state ``... you can see how well the POGA H global average surface temperature matches the observations...» It matches well the phony eighties and nineties and would be off the mark if the real temperatures were substituted.

Since, without free parameters, and parameterizations calibrated (or fudged, if you like) to match observed data (such as it is), models (the principle means of attribution) are unable to replicate real world observations, then the statement above is obvious patent nonsense.

Firstly, on a factual matter, the OHC comparison which I published above...... was not intended to be a comparison with real - world observations, only a comparison with the GISS E ensemble mean result, which should correspond to the reported GISS E temperature profile which was simultaneously matched.

But even when you compare the observations to the model projection with the closest matching time period, the real warming still fell short of the projections.

So explain why the only experiment that matters (real world observation) doesn't match up to the computer climate models (and never has).

I was under the impression (from a quick read of the paper) that the paper showed that IPCC models and real satelite observations don't match because IPCC models are wrong.

My «Word matching» throws up the issue that the paper is only useful for «clear sky» applications, when M's calculation is based on «real sky» radiosonde observations and «real sky» observations from a high tower.

Climate modeler Dr. Gavin Schmidt of NASA GISS comments on the failure of models to match real world observations.