Sentences with phrase «not other modelers»

So why do not other modelers tune theirs to achieve agreement with observations?

Not exact matches

The true challenge, should Chetty take it on, would be to put his model up against the other VAMs mentioned above, using the same NYC school - level dataset, and prove to the public that his model is so «cutting - edge» that it does not suffer from the serious issues with reliability, validity, bias, etc. with which all other modelers are contending.

(1) In this case even if they were correct and the models failed to predict or match reality (which, acc to this post has not been adequately established, bec we're still in overlapping data and model confidence intervals), it could just as well mean that AGW stands and the modelers have failed to include some less well understood or unquantifiable earth system variable into the models, or there are other unknowns within our weather / climate / earth systems, or some noise or choas or catastrophe (whose equation has not been found yet) thing.

The climate modeler, on the other hand, is not interested in the system's behaviour at a particular point in time.

Worse than that the climate modelers aren't familiar with what's needed to «draw» an algoritm to be used in computer - systemprogramming...... Please let us know where they spent their days when others listen to tutors and learnt.

I don't think they're any different than modelers in other fields.

Our models can become «seductive simulations,» as sociologist of science Myanna Lahsen put it, [3] with the modelers, other scientists, the public, and policymakers easily forgetting that the models are not reality but must be tested by it.

Modelers want to hand wave over the big picture, and any time one points to the lack of tropical troposphere warming or any other particular failure / discrepancy, it is like stepping in a fire ant nest, you get swarmed and stung.

In this context, comfort is a form of «truthiness» that does not translate into user confidence in the model, other than via an appeal to the authority of the modelers.

That we can't really model them, and maybe of most concern the way they'll interact with each other, is unhelpful, especially since lots of modelers seem to want to pretend they don't exist.

That said, I chose not to investigate whether Caldeira or other modelers had developed more refined models that called for more SO2 dumped into the stratosphere, as I didn't feel it was necessary to the point of my article.

On the other hand, the results would be founded in observational facts and data, and would not be nearly as subject to the whims and biases of an agendized clique of climate modelers whose basic starting point is, and always will be, «Nothing else but C02 explains it.»

I think you make some statements here that are not necessarily true, e.g. there is no «tunable average cloudiness parameter» AFAIK (but I'm not a GCM modeler, so there are others better suited to comment on this than I am).