Sentences with phrase «modelers assume»

My understanding is that the modelers assume that concentrations of CO2 are the same wherever they occur in the atmosphere — all the way up.

Climate modelers assume the cause must be greenhouse - gas emissions because they have no other explanation.

My understanding is that this is getting at the notion that climate modelers assume they know what the answer is so they construct their models to get the answer they «know» is right.

On the contrary, climate computer modelers assume that the «unknown» (to them) simply does not exist in reality too.

Or it could be that the leveling of 21st century temps is because the sun is a much bigger player than the modelers assume, in which case the imminent danger is cooling, not warming, but these cowards refuse to even consider the possibility.

Not exact matches

«As a result, modelers have been forced to assume that the stomata of all species open and close in response to environmental conditions in the same way,» he said.

For the North Atlantic, however, assuming this new model is right (and it still needs to be validated by other modelers), the pollution - driven respite the area has had from the ongoing rise in worldwide temperatures may well be over for good.

I would assume those oscillations are not readily modeled, but the literature suggests several modelers believe the positive phases are controlled by CO2 and become more persistently positive with increasing CO2.

The mistake you are making is assuming that the modelers are not already aware of the extreme nature of some of the projections.

Previously it was pure arrogance for a layman to assume they knew more than the literally thousands of climate scientist modelers.

This has never been disproven but is simply assumed away by the climate modelers.

I assume that any fool modelers could be consistent among models.

I think the modelers arrive at a «hot spot» by assuming an instantaneous increase in a mid-layer, blocking radiation to the stratosphere.

In the experiment, greenhouse gas emissions in the coming century were assumed to follow a trajectory that climate modelers refer to as the A1B scenario, in which global economic growth is rapid and driven by a balanced portfolio of energy sources, including fossil fuels, renewables, and nuclear.

For the longest time the modelers denied the PDO / AMO existed I assume because they couldn't figure out how to model it they assumed it didn't exist.

The modelers allege a crisis exists because they assume huge positive feedbacks that increase this «base TCS» of ~ 1C.

It seems that if there is a stated range of possible input values, climate modelers tend to assume a gaussian and use a value near the middle.

The modelers have assumed the «hockey stick» and therefore they then conclude the model is robust except for possibly the recent 15 years.

But if the climate modelers are right, we'll see much more of this sort of thing as time goes on — and assuming of course that we continue collectively to * allow * it to go on.

However, it is instructive to note that a simple model of a linear trend plus sine wave matches history so well, particularly since it assumes such a small contribution from CO2 (yet matches history well) and since in prior IPCC reports, the IPCC and most modelers simply refused to include cyclic functions like AMO and PDO in their models.