Sentences with phrase «not account for observations»

There are many who will not like this recent paper published in Nature Communications on principle as it talks of the hiatus in global temperatures for the past 20 years or so, that the Little Ice Age was global in extent, and that climate models can not account for the observations we already have let alone make adequate predictions about what will happen in the future.

I suspect that it looked OK in your view or you didn't check; «the paper i cited talks of the hiatus in global temperatures for the past 20 years or so, that the Little Ice Age was global in extent, and that climate models can not account for the observations we already have let alone make adequate predictions about what will happen in the future.

that climate models can not account for the observations we already have let alone make adequate predictions about what will happen in the future.that century - scale variations in tropical Pacific climate modes can significantly modulate radiatively forced shifts in global temperature.»

Not exact matches

Thus Polanyi concludes that, «When Einstein discovered rationality in nature, unaided by any observation that had not been available for at least fifty years before, our positivistic textbooks promptly covered up the scandal by an appropriately embellished account of his discovery.»

Second, the induction to the new set of laws is not a generalization from particulars; the role of prior theory in guiding observation (of data or selection of uniformities) is accounted for.

Therefore, these explanations do not appear to account for the observations reported here.

However, as with other observational studies, these results may have been affected by confounding variables that were unknown and thus not accounted for, and the observation of an association gives no proof of causality.

Instead, the web special opened with «Estimates of future global temperatures based on recent observations must account for the differing characteristics of each important driver of recent climate change», which sounds a bit ho - hum, if not, well, duh?

Past calculations of orbital elements and system mass ratios based on astrometry (and other visual observations) and the spectral type of Star Ba (G0 - 5) indicate that HD 98230 b is not massive enough to fully account for subsystem B, and suggest the existence of a stellar companion (i.e., Bc).

There is a profound inconsistency between these observations and «under - connectivity» or hypo - connectivity theories that by and large do not account for the possibility of an early phase of neural hyper - connectivity in ASD.

Past calculations of orbital elements and system mass ratios based on astrometry — and other visual observations — and the spectral type of Star Ba (G0 - 5) indicate that Xi Ursae Majoris Bb is not massive enough to fully account for subsystem B (e.g., Wulff Dieter Heintz, 1996, page 411), and suggest the existence of a stellar companion (i.e., Bc).

These write - ups are especially ill received by teachers who work diligently to differentiate instruction for their students yet their informal observation paperwork says doesn't account for this effort.

These write - ups are especially ill received by teachers who work diligently to differentiate instruction for their students yet their informal observation paperwork doesn't account for this effort.

As in most districts, the new evaluations replace a system that involved minimal observation, did not account for test scores and graded teachers simply as satisfactory or unsatisfactory, with few ever getting the latter.

Again, thanks to Kyriakos for his previous reply — I'm pleased to hear my «observations... will [be] take [n] into account».

It seems to me that they must show deeper mixing than 50 M, since there is not enough mass in the upper 50 meters of ocean to account for the annual heat storage changes that are implied by observations for the the full integrated 700 meter volume of ocean.

You can also account for possible errors in the amplitudes of the external forcing and the model response by scaling the signal patterns to best match the observations without influencing the attribution from fingerprinting methods, and this provides a more robust framework for attributing signals than simply looking at the time history of global temperature in models and obs and seeing if they match up or not.

* Indeed, possible errors in the amplitudes of the external forcing and a models response are accounted for by scaling the signal patterns to best match observations, and thus the robustness of the IPCC conclusion is not slaved to uncertainties in aerosol forcing or sensitivity being off.

Instead, the web special opened with «Estimates of future global temperatures based on recent observations must account for the differing characteristics of each important driver of recent climate change», which sounds a bit ho - hum, if not, well, duh?

... a pronounced strengthening in Pacific trade winds over the past two decades — unprecedented in observations / reanalysis data and not captured by climate models — is sufficient to account for the cooling of the tropical Pacific and a substantial slowdown in surface warming through increased subsurface ocean heat uptake.

Abstract:... Here we show that a pronounced strengthening in Pacific trade winds over the past two decades — unprecedented in observations / reanalysis data and not captured by climate models — is sufficient to account for the cooling of the tropical Pacific and a substantial slowdown in surface warming through increased subsurface ocean heat uptake.

The models in the case of AGW, are a little more scientific than either approach /;, the variables can not all be counted for, but they do provide insights to the totality of the research, and the models, (and data fed into the models) satellite data and observations from researchers in the geographical areas affected by GW, agree more than do not, as long as the averages are taken into account.

Some biases are corrected for (time of observation, re-siting to place), but it is fair to say not all biases are accounted for.

The high confidence level ascribed by the IPCC provides bootstrapped plausibility to the uncertain temperature observations, uncertain forcing, and uncertain model sensitivity, each of which has been demonstrated in the previous sections to have large uncertainties that were not accounted for in the conclusion.

Third, because the maximum warming lags emissions of carbons by about a decade, budgets based on ESMs (or combined observations / ESMs) do not fully account for emissions over the final decade before the 1.5 C threshold is exceeded.

(Equally the AOGCMs are not compatible with these satellite - based observations, since none of them manage to simulate or account for this increase in net received shortwave over this key period.)

The model does not include the urban effects that are accounted for in the methodology based on observations of urban stations.

While it takes into account earlier planning exercises in arctic research, it also includes some ideas that have not been explicitly articulated previously, such as defining NSF's possible role in contaminant studies, the importance of long - term observations and monitoring as a foundation for basic research in the Arctic, and the significance of the Arctic in high atmosphere studies.

Critcisms of the energy budget model approach are that it is sensitive to uncertainties in observations and doesn't account for slow feedbacks between the atmosphere, deep oceans and ice sheets.

CFCs and CO2 are therefore not required to account for observations or are far less important than previously proposed.

The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an (unknown) amplifying mechanism.

Consider this key sentence: «The (climate) forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR - cloud link.»

A fairer comparsion would involve also adjusting the observations to account for the effects of internal variablity (e.g. by regression analysis to remove the effects of ENSO and volcanic forcings which the models do not include).

The authors also note that their estimates can not account for the huge ice loss measured by satellite observations and gravitational measurements from the GRACE satellite.

st Order Draft, the Second Order Draft, p7, cites several papers re empirical relationships between GCR and aspects of the climate system and notes: «The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesiz GCR - cloud link.»

The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of this unknown amplifying mechanism.The cosmic ray - ionization mechanism is too weak to influence global concentrations of CCN or their change over the last century or during a solar cycle in any climatically significant way.

The forcingfrom changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an (unknown) amplifying mechanism.

This is similar to the argument Benoit Mandelbrot and Nassim Taleb made about Mandelbrot's observation that fluctuations in markets for shares, futures, and commodities are not normally distributed but have fat tails: this means that standard risk - management practices (e.g., stress - testing portfolios) will fail to account properly for extremely unlikely events.

If however you could make a positive suggestion as to alternative mechanism to account for observations then that would be welcome but I hold out no hope of that because you don't even accept that the observations do differ from what we would expect from internal system variability on it's own.

They did not account for modern observations in calibrating marine ice - sheet instability, or probe rates of ice - cliff collapse as fast as the fastest currently seen in Greenland.

«The scientific method demands that even if there is only one observation not fully explained by a hypothesis the hypothesis must be dropped or modified to fully account for all observations.»