Sentences with phrase «model outputs giving»

What you can say is the observed temperatures are consistent with model outputs giving a particular set of forcings.

Not exact matches

Input - output models give gross figures but we need to net out alternative uses of funds.

Analysis of the model's signals gave an elegant result: When the neuron sensors were fed consonant chords like a major third on a piano, the interneuron gave an output signal consisting of regular, well - shaped peaks.

The computer model provides engineers with the nerve output generated by a given stimulus, which can then be recreated in a prosthetic by electrically stimulating the nerve through an interface implanted in the body.

I also argued (but this was unfortunately not highlighted in this particular article), that I could not find anything about the New Mexico model's output (e.g., indicators of reliability or consistency in terms of teachers» rankings over time, indicators of validity as per, for example, whether the state's value - added output correlated, or not, with the other «multiple measures» used in New Mexico's teacher evaluation system), pretty much anywhere given my efforts.

The goal of this letter, though, was to give those in Santa Fe, but also others throughout the state of New Mexico, not only a more comprehensive and accurate assessment of my testimony, but more a note about how the taxpayers of New Mexico have a right to know much, much more about their state's teacher evaluation model, as well as the model's output (i.e., to see how the model is actually functioning as claimed).

It fairly evenly splits the difference between the C300 and C63 in terms of displacement, cylinder count, and output, but its sporty demeanor and performance capabilities bring it closer to the eight - cylinder model, not a surprise given the AMG in the name.

The changes over the standard production model included a modified engine that produced an extra 30 PS (22 kW; 30 bhp) more than the standard 200 PS (150 kW; 200 bhp) version, raising the output to 230 PS (170 kW; 230 bhp), giving rumour that it was faster in the dry and more powerful than the R32.

The 1971 model had a respectable 315 hp (235 kW), but that was reduced to a mere 205 hp (153 kW) by the 1976 model year; increasingly stringent exhaust emission limits reduced engine output, and an industry - wide 1972 change in rating systems reduced the horsepower numbers produced by any given engine.

I expect output to have increased beyond the second - gen's 250 horsepower and 253 pound - feet of torque, which should bring a noticeable increase in performance given the fact that the new Pilot is also 300 pounds lighter than the model it replaces.

The new model has fared well for itself, but if owners of the Giulia want to really get a leg up over their 3 Series and C - Class counterparts, they'll have to go the aftermarket route and get a tuner like Speed Buster to give the Giulia's 2.2 - liter four - cylinder diesel variant a tuning upgrade that nets an output of 224 horsepower and 326 pound - feet of torque.

Adding nearly five inches to the wheelbase and slightly increasing suspension travel gives the 2015 Ranger Diesel 4 × 4 a smoother ride than the previous model, while the environmentally - friendly Kohler's 110 - amp alternator doubles the electrical output of the old diesel.»

The SEAT Leon Cupra 300, to give it its full title (after the car's metric power output), is now the only version of the Cupra on sale since the slightly less powerful standard Cupra model was withdrawn.

The 2013 Ford Focus ST picks up where the SVT version left off after the 2004 model year by transforming the pedestrian Focus — a nice but otherwise serviceable car — into a true enthusiast's ride, stuffing a high - output engine underhood, installing a sport suspension underfoot, dressing the interior with some serious seats and equipment and generally giving a performance nod to every aspect of the car.

Recall that in their 2001 Third Assessment Report, the IPCC gives a range of temperature increase between 1990 and 2100 of 1.4 and 5.8 ºC based upon the simulated output from 7 different climate models run under 35 different emissions scenarios — each of which the IPCC claimed as having an equal probability of occurrence.

But I still have a lingering though unfounded suspicion that variations in the solar output should be given more higher weight in the climate models.

The subset of model output that McKitrick used (which was provided for a completely different issue) is not capable of giving the metric you want.

Although we like to think of model output as being deterministic (the solution my model gives is THE solution), the reality is far different.

Being a retired biz executive, the climate model output has always reminded me of marketing managers spending way too much time devising Excel algorithms that provide «empirical» evidence, with the end result always being that a new marketing campaign means total domination of a given market within a few years.

However, looking at another model - output, like the (non-physical) linear sensitivity to a specific forcing, any given model could be suffering from chaos.

A listing of the spatial and temporal resolution of the atmospheric reanalysis datasets is given at https://reanalyses.org/atmosphere/comparison-table see the Model Output Resolution column and Publicly Available Dataset Resolution column.

It's also not surprising that an off - the - cuff prediction that the future will look like the past is not a bad way to predict the future, but the models were not given the benefit of that shortcut, and so what was at issue was their ability to yield reasonable output on the basis of inputted physical principles, initial and boundary values, parametrizations, and appropriate choice of simplifying assumptions.

Overall, the submissions reinforce the impressions of sceptics viz. * the IPCC process is politically driven * IPCC is still indulging in (uncritical) selection bias * IPCC is still giving unjustified credence to the output of computer models * IPCC's handling of statistics is very poor * IPCC's conclusions are not robust At least the submissions attest to the fraudulence of the IPCC's pretense of presenting itself as an objective and impartial assessor of the literature.

Spence — Modelers will be grateful if you can instruct them how to initialize the models to give any desired output.

The overall problem with models is that they are designed from the start to view GHGs as the central assumption, so a model output that gives an answer related to GHGs is the expected one by definition.

In this case, the «right» answer, for the proponents of CAGW, is that those models whose output shows that CO2 is evil, and we must curb emissions immediately, or preferably sooner than that, give the «right» answer.

Held showed that this worked, and gave a summary statistic that says a lot about the output of the Real Model.

It would be interesting if the model outputs and the TLTs were related back to a stochastic emulation with specifed model parameters given estimated values and ranges.

Given the existence of many other climate models, one of the most important tests was the comparison of C - ROADS output to the output of disaggregated simulations from the SRES database (e.g., MAGICC) given a range of emissions input scenaGiven the existence of many other climate models, one of the most important tests was the comparison of C - ROADS output to the output of disaggregated simulations from the SRES database (e.g., MAGICC) given a range of emissions input scenagiven a range of emissions input scenarios.

Surely after decades of satellite measurements, countless field experiments, and numerous finescale modeling studies that have repeatedly highlighted basic deficiencies in the ability of comprehensive climate models to represent processes contributing to atmospheric aerosol forcing, it is time to give up on the fantasy that somehow their output can be accepted at face value.»

The sources of uncertainty are many, including the trajectory of greenhouse gas emissions in the future, their conversion into atmospheric concentrations, the range of responses of various climate models to a given radiative forcing and the method of constructing high resolution information from global climate model outputs (Pittock, 1995; see Figure 13.2).

Sure, but if it takes 500 years to notice them, I'm pretty sure the AOGCM models give meaningless output on that scale anyway.

This latter value when used in the models gives 1K to 6K per century as output.

First, was the simplistic application of statistics beyond an average in the form of a straight line trend analysis: Second, predictions were given awesome, but unjustified status, as the output of computer models.

If the model were run with say Archer's 2.7 % methane output (giving a precise doubling of CO2e output with CH4 GWP set at 100 for the crucial 20 yr horizon) and with the rational assumption of the carbon sinks» efficiency declining throughout this century, what multiple of the authors» finding of 0.25 C to 1.0 C warming from permafrost melt would you expect?

My question is: how does the model specifically output a 2 metre near - surface temperature for each grid cell given the setup described above?

There are models that give large CO2 effects, models that give moderate CO2 effects, and models that give large CO2 effects as outputs; but there are no models that have made confirmed accurate predictions against out of sample data.

It certainly must be included in the model, along with atmosphere and ocean convection and many other factors, but the output is a representation of the climate response at a given time.

Regardless of the disproportionate amount of public attention being given to the paleo - reconstructions, the big drive for more efficient access to data sets is simply the size and complexity of the models» output and satellite retrievals.

In any case, it is simply an effort to reconcile the rapid rates of warming in the Arctic with the output of the most recent group of global climate models — everyone agrees that global warming is real, except for a very large number of editors and reporters with the U.S. press, who continue to advocate for the positions held by a small number of fossil fuel funded contrarians and insist on giving them «equal time» — a luxury denied to renewable energy experts.

The actual model outputs have been available for a long time, and it is somewhat surprising that no - one has looked specifically at it given the attention the subject has garnered.

It must be easier to work with a single model instead of several, that anyway gives different output.

That way, for a given forecast case, they know variation in model output is due to differing climate - related assumptions rather than differing economic assumptions.

There may also be a problem of translation into English, as given the range of forecast warming, there must be an even bigger range of output from the climate model on the decrease in cereal yields.

If a model, say, a paleo reconstruction, gives you a completely bad output in exactly the best years it had to show that it worked well against actual thermometers (despite the calibration years), it destroys the credibility of the whole reconstruction.

The model outputs are generally presented as an average of an ensemble of individual runs (and even ensembles of individual runs from multiple models), in order to remove this variability from the overall picture, because among grownups it is understood that 1) the long term trends are what we're interested and 2) the coarseness of our measurements of initial conditions combined with a finite modeled grid size means that models can not predict precisely when and how temps will vary around a trend in the real world (they can, however, by being run many times, give us a good idea of the * magnitude * of that variance, including how many years of flat or declining temperatures we might expect to see pop up from time to time).

Like all PlayStation 3 models, the Slim includes a built - in hard drive for cutting load times, a Blu - ray player, built - in Wi - Fi connectivity (giving it a major leg up over the Xbox 360, which requires a $ 100 accessory for the privilege), two USB ports for accessories and controller charging, and 1080p HDMI output.

Now the Huawei Honor 6 does not really compete with the Killer OnePlus one model — OPO gives better camera output as compared with Honor 6 and most importantly OPO can play 4K and shoot 4K videos which Honor 6 unfortunately can't.

Because there's a practical limit to the number of amplification channels a receiver can house in its chassis (most max out at 9), some of those higher - end models will give you the option of adding an external power amplifier to drive additional speaker channels (via pre-amp outputs).