Sentences with phrase «model scenarios about»

That was the message of a report released Monday on model scenarios about Michigan's energy future.

Not exact matches

Though it's anyone's guess how the data might influence the Fed's thinking about the pace of rate hikes, the contrasting views of policymakers suggest that now may be time for investors to model the impact of the three scenarios on their portfolios.

They used two different climate models, each with a different sensitivity to carbon dioxide, to project California's future under two scenarios: an optimistic one, in which we only double the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere — since the 19th century we've already increased it by about a third — and a pessimistic scenario, in which we more than triple CO2.

In addition to documenting the amount of defensive ecosystems in the U.S., the researchers fed data about property values, population, income and age into a model that tested four sea - level rise scenarios.

As can be seen your graph, our climate models make a wide range of predictions (perhaps 0.5 - 5 degC, a 10-fold uncertainty) about how much «committed warming» will occur in the future under any stabilization scenario, so we don't seem to have a decent understanding of these processes.

On the limited information available to me, they seem quite promising — but it certainly would have been helpful in making judgments on this point if the IPCC had modelled a low - medium population projection (as in the A1 and B1 scenarios) which made more moderate assumptions about growth in output and energy use.

The goal of the Integrated Scenarios project is to use the global climate models to describe as accurately as possible what the latest science says about the Northwest's future climate.

A couple of commentators (Pat Michaels, Roy Spencer) recently raised an issue about the standard scenarios used to compare climate models, in this case related to a study on the potential increase in hurricane activity.

The cool thing about this collection is it's comprised of in - real - life scenarios — no models or studio pics here — rather personal selfies uploaded most likely various social networks.

Although it might be seen as a worst - case scenario, underneath the comedic surface of the material are serious themes about the dangers of bad parenting, particularly in how children learn to be just as corrupt as their parents in the absence of strong role models and people to help mold them into upright individuals.

Recording Observations: Have students record their observations about which flooding scenario caused more damage to the model houses and the floodplain, and compare these to the observations of their peers.

The «better» and «best» scenarios can be achieved by plopping down $ 449 (about # 297, AU$ 637, though official pricing outside of the US has yet to be announced) on a mid-range Steam Machine from Alienware, or up to $ 4,999 (about # 3311, AU$ 7093) on a high - end model pieced together by boutique PC manufacturers, like Gigabyte, Falcon Northwest, Origin and Digital Storm.

On the limited information available to me, they seem quite promising — but it certainly would have been helpful in making judgments on this point if the IPCC had modelled a low - medium population projection (as in the A1 and B1 scenarios) which made more moderate assumptions about growth in output and energy use.

[Response: I don't have a model of the scenario they're talking about.

R.E. Benestad (2002), Empirically downscaled multi-model ensemble temperature and precipitation scenarios for Norway, Journal of Climate Vol 51, No. 21, 3008 - 3027 R.E. Benestad (2003) What can present climate models tell us about climate change?

As stated last year, the Scenario B in that paper is running a little high compared with the actual forcings growth (by about 10 %)(and high compared to A1B), and the old GISS model had a climate sensitivity that was a little higher (4.2 ºC for a doubling of CO2) than the best estimate (~ 3ºC).

Extending the data out to last year — 2006 — we see the temperature trend is still below Scenario C and about 0.2 C below Scenario B. I am asserting that the 1998 models over-estimate the impact on global temperature.

It is definately a non linear scenario as we are talking about mulitple + ve feedbacks in play so a compounding graph will fit the model better.

Incidentally, I have been unable to find out if the models which are producing the GW scenarios include some allowance for the fact that the ocean / atmosphere interface (the boundary layer, so called, an irritating nomenclature as the words already have a technical meaning) was changed drastically from about 1850 onwards by surfactant and oil spill pollution as the petrochemical industry and petrol engine technologies began to hit their stride.

Based on results from large ensemble simulations with the Community Earth System Model, we show that internal variability alone leads to a prediction uncertainty of about two decades, while scenario uncertainty between the strong (Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5) and medium (RCP4.5) forcing scenarios [possible paths for greenhouse gas emissions] adds at least another 5 years.

Raw climate model results for a business - as - usual scenario indicate that we can expect global temperatures to increase anywhere in the range of 5.8 and 10.6 degrees Fahrenheit (3.2 to 5.9 degrees Celsius) over preindustrial levels by the end of the century — a difference of about a factor of two between the most - and least - severe projections.

In fact, why can't you go one step further and forget about even trying to decide which of the scenarios presented were the most realistic and just dig up the model, plug in the emissions numbers, volcanic eruptions, etc. from the last couple decades and see how well the model holds up.

These two scenarios use the same model, and thus the same assumptions about foresight and capital stock turnover.

Asside from the arguments over who is being dishonest about the testimony... didn't scenario B turn out to be closer to what actually happened RE said boundary conditions and so should not that be the proper comparison result (over time) for the Hansen model at this time?

2: Our Changing Climate, Key Message 5).2 Regional climate models (RCMs) using the same emissions scenario also project increased spring precipitation (9 % in 2041 - 2062 relative to 1979 - 2000) and decreased summer precipitation (by an average of about 8 % in 2041 - 2062 relative to 1979 - 2000) particularly in the southern portions of the Midwest.12 Increases in the frequency and intensity of extreme precipitation are projected across the entire region in both GCM and RCM simulations (Figure 18.6), and these increases are generally larger than the projected changes in average precipitation.12, 2

The scenarios that scientists are looking at depend on measurements of air and water temperatures taken at hundreds of sites around the world, as well as complex models about how trends will evolve in the coming decades.

«No matter how fast or sophisticated those models are, feeding them false or unproven assumptions about CO2 and manipulated or «homogenized» temperature data still yields garbage output, scenarios and predictions.»

The group developed a proposal later adopted by the WG, which states that by 2050, annual CO2 emissions derived from Earth System Models following RCP2.6, a mitigation scenario, are smaller than 1990 emissions, and that by the end of the 21st century, about half of the models infer emissions slightly above zero, while the other half infer a net removal of CO2 from the atmosModels following RCP2.6, a mitigation scenario, are smaller than 1990 emissions, and that by the end of the 21st century, about half of the models infer emissions slightly above zero, while the other half infer a net removal of CO2 from the atmosmodels infer emissions slightly above zero, while the other half infer a net removal of CO2 from the atmosphere.

Patrick Brown and Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution for Science say incorporating observational data of «Earth's top - of - atmosphere energy budget» shows the «warming projection for the end of the twenty - first century for the steepest radiative forcing scenario is about 15 per cent warmer (+0.5 degrees Celsius)... relative to the raw model projections reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.»

Cryosphere: Projections on developments in the cryosphere inspired interventions, during which delegates questioned the CLAs about levels of certainty, models and the utilization of different scenarios.

For various model - based storylines and scenarios IPCC AR4 WG1 models estimate an increase between 1.1 and 6.4 C, so this is just outside the lowest end of the IPCC range (and nothing to worry about).

The modeling results indicate that, if nations continue to increase their emissions of greenhouse gases in a «business as usual» scenario, the U.S. ratio of daily record high to record low temperatures would increase to about 20 - to - 1 by mid-century and 50 - to - 1 by 2100.

In as much as none of the model scenarios can be validated, all predictions about future climate conditions amount to nothing more that, «Wait to see if our predictions come true; you'll see then.

In my experience this is certainly the case if you talk about the simulations as predictions rather than projections — the climate models are not predicting what the weather will be on the 5th of May 2051 — they are providing projections of the climate based on emission scenarios and initial conditions.

Do you feel that some of the sometimes discussed positive feedback loops that Tim Lenton and others have researched and written about, do you think those are incorporated and discussed enough into some of this modelling and scenario work?

The assumptions about renewable energies used in this scenario and the modelling are based on misconceptions.

Even if you quibble about the meaning of the term «significant», the fact that none of the datasets have risen to the levels predicted by past climate models — even in their «best case scenarios» for CO2 emissions — still blows the hypothesis out of the water.

A new carbon tax calculator from the research firm E3 lets you model carbon tax rates in a national setting; in one test scenario a flat $ 5 per ton carbon tax still generates about a 6 % CO2 reduction.

Each model run is of value as it presents a «what if» scenario from which we may learn about the model or the Earth system.

2: Our Changing Climate, Key Messages 5 and 6).4, 10 A range of model projections for the end of this century under a higher emissions scenario (A2), averaged over the region, suggests about 5 % to 20 % (25th to 75th percentile of model projections) increases in winter precipitation.

In particular, we find that the observationally informed warming projection for the end of the twenty - first century for the steepest radiative forcing scenario is about 15 per cent warmer (+0.5 degrees Celsius) with a reduction of about a third in the two - standard - deviation spread (− 1.2 degrees Celsius) relative to the raw model projections reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.»

The main result of the paper, as highlighted in the abstract, is that for the highest - emissions RCP8.5 scenario predicted warming circa 2090 [7] is about 15 % higher than the raw multimodel mean, and has a spread only about two - thirds as large as that for the model - ensemble.

David Stockwell's paper on how to improve the methodology for adjusting the raw temperature data or for adjusting for missing temperature data is distinct from computer modelling where an algorithm is employed based on various assumptions about AGW, CO2, clouds and the like to predict future climate «scenarios».

More information about the models and scenarios used in this report can be found in Appendix 5 of the full report.1

So if you are genuinely serious about wanting to evaluation the skill of the prediction, you use scenario B. Scenario A is just wrong; and manaker's statements about the data — even the emissions, let alone the model input — are inscenario B. Scenario A is just wrong; and manaker's statements about the data — even the emissions, let alone the model input — are inScenario A is just wrong; and manaker's statements about the data — even the emissions, let alone the model input — are incorrect.

What is the value of an integrated assessment model that combines highly unlikely physical scenarios with an economic model that does economic calculations based on numbers that are throughout pure guesswork, and does that furthermore in a way that overemphasizes highly the part of the period on which we know as little as 19th century people knew about today?

This is what the IPCC scenario excercise is all about, and why the model simulations for the future are called projections, not predictions.

Similarly, the climate scenarios were based on 2xCO2 equilibrium GCM projections from three models, where the radiative forcing of climate was interpreted as the combined concentrations of CO2 (555 ppm) and other greenhouse gases (contributing about 15 % of the change in forcing) equivalent to a doubling of CO2, assumed to occur in about 2060.

The weather model showed that extreme summertime surface temperatures developed when carbon dioxide emissions were assumed to continue to increase about two percent a year, the «business as usual» scenario.

They constantly talk about how good the models are, how you can count on the predictions (ahem, «scenarios»).