Sentences with phrase «own physical understanding»

'' [W] e can now get extremely sharp images,» he said, which creates «a unique opportunity to improve our physical understanding of Eta Carinae and many other key objects.»

If my object of worship was limited to the physical I understand all to well that the physical will soon pass away.

Much work still needs to be done by physicists to determine the precise nature of the Higgs particle and its significance for our physical understanding of the material universe.

Einstein never gave the Giffords, but his contention that God does not play dice with the universe set the stage for lecturers such as Ernest Rutherford and Nils Bohr, who considered whether a physical understanding of the world left any room for the activity of God.

Our physical understanding of the macroscopic world is so good that everything from bridges to aircraft can be designed and tested on a computer.

«I really wish I had a physical understanding of what is going on, and I don't,» Toms says.

The results could show whether dogs» shortcomings in physical understanding are ingrained or have to do with the environments they grow up in.

They are actually studying physical understanding.

«We've done the world's best job of decreasing the uncertainty in the measured rate of universal expansion and of accurately assessing the size of this uncertainty,» said Filippenko, «yet we find that our measured rate of expansion is probably incompatible with the rate expected from observations of the young universe, suggesting that there's something important missing in our physical understanding of the universe.»

Furthermore, basic physical understanding supports the modeled value of E being substantially greater than 1, as deep oceans clearly take longer to respond than the land surface, so the Northern Hemisphere, with most of the world's land, will respond more rapidly than the Southern Hemisphere with more ocean.

A judgment of each estimate's reliability is given as a level of scientific understanding based on uncertainties in the climate change agents and physical understanding of their radiative effects.

Using a global network of observations as input and our physical understanding of the atmosphere, weather simulations do a good job at estimating how fast these systems will travel and how they interact.

For the projections, the differences will mostly depend on different scenarios this time around (including some very optimistic ones) rather than any great improvement in physical understanding.

Putting these exercises into practice while carrying or lifting heavy loads may take some mental focus at first until the technical and physical understanding of the technique is understood and muscle memory is developed.

Each piece produces its own physical understanding.

The subjective exploration of imagined space inspired by the experience of a literal one has been a continued interest in Zahaykevich's work; the physical understanding of her sculpture has a deceptive relationship to it's actual size.

It seems to me that there is a particular haptic quality to the work of many California artists who did not follow or come out of the Finish Fetish school, but rather drew on the specific qualities of the West Coast environment to inform their vocabulary — light filled, a hyper awareness of geology, and a physical understanding of material.

This range reflects both uncertainties in physical understanding and inaccuracies arising from the need to reduce the mathematical problem to one that can be handled by even the fastest available electronic computers.

The paleoclimatic record plus physical understanding greatly reduce the worst worries about instabilities from methane stored in cold places, but tend to support a role in amplifying future warming.

Studies with climate models have noted that the ITCZ width depends on interactions between radiation and clouds (Voigt & Shaw 2015) and how the model represents sub-grid scale convection (Kang et al. 2009), but a physical understanding of why the ITCZ width is affected by these processes is lacking.

Physical Understanding of Climate, and 3.

The summer - winter changes in insolation are much larger than those due to human - induced greenhouse gas changes; the seasonal change is mainly in the visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum while the greenhouse gas forcing is in the infrared; the greenhouse gas influence is global while the seasonal changes are opposite in the two hemispheres; and we have a much longer history of observing the seasonal changes, so a more or less correct prediction can be made empirically, without any physical understanding.

At one point of the paper Miskolczi presents correct arguments based on the physical understanding that the equality is not true when there are temperature differences.

Physical understanding is only obfuscated by appealing to vague, abberant notions of «positive water vapor feeback.»

Finally, it is therefore inescapable that: if the official GAST data from NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU are invalid, then both the «basic physical understanding» of climate and the associated climate models will also be invalid --

Theoretical physical understanding of the interacting components — informed by both models and observations, is essential to understanding what's going on.

Does that not count as a test of usefulness to simulate some of the system's physical processes, which aids our physical understanding?

They are convinced by a «consilience of evidence» (Oreske's phrase) that includes the model's relation to theory and physical understanding of the processes involved, consistency of the simulated responses among different models and different model versions, and the ability of the model and model components to simulate historical observations.

I'm not disparaging narrowly - based advances in physical understanding.

Focus: Long - standing model biases (at least a few of them); Understand how model errors or shortcomings impact projections and predictions; Gain physical understanding of the climate system through model development.

«In the case of the Arctic we have high confidence in observations since 1979, from models (see Section 9.4.3 and from simulations comparing with and without anthropogenic forcing), and from physical understanding of the dominant processes; taking these three factors together it is very likely that anthropogenic forcing has contributed to the observed decreases in Arctic sea ice since 1979.»

This mantra has been widely misunderstood and misapplied, but was the first and perhaps still the only systematic conclusion about regional precipitation and global warming based on robust physical understanding of the atmosphere.

[Lorius et al., 1990] concluded from their analysis that climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is 3 - 4ºC, in good agreement with independent estimates based on the physical understanding of CO2 forcing and relevant feedbacks as coded in models.

The complexity and non-linearity of the climate system does not allow such a simple statistical derivation of climate sensitivity without a physical understanding of the key processes and feedbacks.

Instead of saying «according to theory,» you might say, «according to our physical understanding of how this works,»

Recently we've been getting more specific predictions into the future, and as you keep an eye on trends you can (potentially) falsify the expectations from present physical understanding.

I think it's important to understand that the way in which our climate models encode our physical understanding of the system produces climate sensitivity or the response of the climate system to doubling of CO2, for example.

If their math is correct (which has been disputed), then the physical understanding can be developed.

It is well known that curve fitting to a series of chaotic signals can lead to apparent periodicities, but that these have no value for prediction unless they are supported by an underlying physical understanding.

One might use the «modal» ideas as an «estimator» of likely future behavior, but we are after physical understanding that will foretell not likely behavior, but actual behavior.

Using a global network of observations as input and our physical understanding of the atmosphere, weather simulations do a good job at estimating how fast these systems will travel and how they interact.

the sedimentary record (Jakobsson et al., 2011), and our physical understanding (Alley et al., 2008) suggest that beyond some threshold ice - shelf reduction leads to complete loss as the ice shelf calves away, potentially in less than or much less than one year.

He said allegations of upside - down use are bizarre, regression methods are blind to the sign of the predictor, and one - sided tests are used only when a physical understanding is known beforehand.

I posted on this thread https://climateaudit.org/2009/10/14/upside-side-down-mann-and-the-peerreviewedliterature/ that the only reasonable way to read Mann's reply to the PNAS comment is that he thinks there is no a priori physical understanding for Tiljander, and therefore either orientation is correct and no one - sided test was used.

I think if Mike stays in the meta - assembly of proxies business (which he should, it's his expertise), that he needs to become more sophisticated in physical understandings and in using co-authors (no perfect answer here, since we can't expect one man to know everything, but it will affect the quality of his work, the extent to which he can screen inputs).

Perhaps I'm biased because I'm a physicist not a statistician, but to me it is clear that physical evidence, like our physical understanding of how CO2 affects SST and how SST affects hurricanes, gives you warning of the loaded dice long before you can prove it from the damage statistics.

Objective: Basic physical understanding and forecasts of seasonal to multidecadal tropical cyclone activity.

These expectations are based on physical understanding of the climate system.

This was a model based not on physical understanding but on empirical curve fitting.

Finally, it is therefore inescapable that: if the official GAST data from NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU are invalid, then both the «basic physical understanding» of climate and the associated climate models will also be invalid — resulting in tens of billions in wasted climate research funding.