Sentences with phrase «modelers claim»

If water vapor has an amplifying effect as climate modelers claim, why is the daily mean temperature in a dry, desert area warmer (in spite of nighttime cooling) than a humid tropical area at the same latitude?

Lindzen's seventh paragraph: «Modelers claim to have simulated the warming and cooling that occurred before 1976 by choosing among various guesses as to what effect poorly observed volcanoes and unmeasured output from the sun have had.

Ah, the «models» are supposed to be based on first principles and the modelers claim that they are not in anyway, shape or form.

If anything, the state's EVAAS system does, even though EVAAS modelers claim they do not do this, by statistically controlling for students» prior performance, which (unfortunately) has these demographics already built into them.

On the one hand, climate modeler claim that their model are adequate to base future decision on them.

Not exact matches

It is this model on which I have conducted most of my research (see, for example, the first piece I published about this model here, in which most of the claims I made still stand, although EVAAS modelers disagreed here).

Whether the model fitting process is «science» or just «ad hoc fitting» ultimately depends on precisely on how it's done, how much verification is done afterwards, what claims one makes about the predictions of the model one develops (or concocts) this way and what is going on in the modeler's head.

The specific claim made is that the number of grid boxes in actual climate models is relatively much smaller — but all that means is the statistics of climate models will have much more uncertainty than the actual physical climate, hardly something modelers don't recognize.

In my company the cat claims modelers are focused on just one thing: dollars out vs. dollars in.

Models can't predict local and regional patterns or seasonal effects, yet modelers add up all the erroneous micro-estimates and claim to produce an accurate macro global forecast.

Modelers may claim that these feedbacks are not arbitrary because they must exist, otherwise real climate would fuctuate madly.

Anyone who claims that the river modeler has failed because the model did not predict the path of a leaf has completely missed the point.

Inasmuch as essentially all of the IPCC claims of AGW attribution, the projections of future climate changes and the resulting recommendations to policymakers are based on GCM simulations, this is a fairly damning conclusion that will not make many modelers (and certainly not IPCC) happy.

For good measure he also throws in a conspiracy theory by claiming that climate modelers only want to scare people, because they wouldn't get money for their research otherwise.

«In response to those who complained in my recent post that linear trends are not a good way to compare the models to observations (even though the modelers have claimed that it's the long - term behavior of the models we should focus on, not individual years), here are running 5 - year averages for the tropical tropospheric temperature, models versus observations...»

What I find most fantastical about the zeal of the climate modelers is how they will compose such contorted arguments to justify their claim of a scientifically significant warming trend of about 1 degree C over the last century.

The modelers were just scrambling to see the presence of something they claimed would be prominent.

«We might forgive these modelers if their forecasts had not been so consistently and spectacularly wrong,» they wrote, claiming that the «forecasts for future temperatures have continued to be too warm.»

Jerry has been claiming the modelers set turbulent ν (as a parameterization) to values appropriate for molasses, not air.

Which as you point out, Steve, puts the lie to the modeler's claims you cited above.

The IPCC and climate modelers don't claim otherwise.