Sentences with phrase «see model predictions»

If you see model predictions at odds with observed long term data, doesn't that tend to influence selection of input parameters (that are poorly known anyway) to get better agreement?

Not exact matches

However, in order to both keep the model as simple as possible and give predictions that are in reality a best - case scenario, our model simply assumes that each household's income grows at a steady, fixed rate each year, that retirement savings grow and accumulate returns at a steady pace, etc. (For more detail on the values used in the model for growth in home values, retirement assets, etc., see the Methodology Appendix below).

The absence of prediction is a major point of distinction between metaphysical and scientific models, but in other features Ferré sees considerable similarity:

SEE ALSO: Tony Pulis reveals why Tottenham starlet Alex Pritchard is not playing for West Brom Europa League predictions: Liverpool get revenge on Man United, Tottenham Hotspur face stiff test Picture: Chelsea, Tottenham & Man City stars model Belgium's silky away kit for Euro 2016

Time for some brutal honesty... this team, as it stands, is in no better position to compete next season than they were 12 months ago, minus the fact that some fans have been easily snowed by the acquisition of Lacazette, the free transfer LB and the release of Sanogo... if you look at the facts carefully you will see a team that still has far more questions than answers... to better show what I mean by this statement I will briefly discuss the current state of affairs on a position - by - position basis... in goal we have 4 potential candidates, but in reality we have only 1 option with any real future and somehow he's the only one we have actively tried to get rid of for years because he and his father were a little too involved on social media and he got caught smoking (funny how people still defend Wiltshire under the same and far worse circumstances)... you would think we would want to keep any goaltender that Juventus had interest in, as they seem to have a pretty good history when it comes to that position... as far as the defenders on our current roster there are only a few individuals whom have the skill and / or youth worthy of our time and / or investment, as such we should get rid of anyone who doesn't meet those simple requirements, which means we should get rid of DeBouchy, Gibbs, Gabriel, Mertz and loan out Chambers to see if last seasons foray with Middlesborough was an anomaly or a prediction of things to come... some fans have lamented wildly about the return of Mertz to the starting lineup due to his FA Cup performance but these sort of pie in the sky meanderings are indicative of what's wrong with this club and it's wishy - washy fan - base... in addition to these moves the club should aggressively pursue the acquisition of dominant and mobile CB to stabilize an all too fragile defensive group that has self - destructed on numerous occasions over the past 5 seasons... moving forward and building on our need to re-establish our once dominant presence throughout the middle of the park we need to target a CDM then do whatever it takes to get that player into the fold without any of the usual nickel and diming we have become famous for (this kind of ruthless haggling has cost us numerous special players and certainly can't help make the player in question feel good about the way their future potential employer feels about them)... in order for us to become dominant again we need to be strong up the middle again from Goalkeeper to CB to DM to ACM to striker, like we did in our most glorious years before and during Wenger's reign... with this in mind, if we want Ozil to be that dominant attacking midfielder we can't keep leaving him exposed to constant ridicule about his lack of defensive prowess and provide him with the proper players in the final third... he was never a good defensive player in Real or with the German National squad and they certainly didn't suffer as a result of his presence on the pitch... as for the rest of the midfield the blame falls squarely in the hands of Wenger and Gazidis, the fact that Ramsey, Ox, Sanchez and even Ozil were allowed to regularly start when none of the aforementioned had more than a year left under contract is criminal for a club of this size and financial might... the fact that we could find money for Walcott and Xhaka, who weren't even guaranteed starters, means that our whole business model needs a complete overhaul... for me it's time to get rid of some serious deadweight, even if it means selling them below what you believe their market value is just to simply right this ship and change the stagnant culture that currently exists... this means saying goodbye to Wiltshire, Elneny, Carzola, Walcott and Ramsey... everyone, minus Elneny, have spent just as much time on the training table as on the field of play, which would be manageable if they weren't so inconsistent from a performance standpoint (excluding Carzola, who is like the recent version of Rosicky — too bad, both will be deeply missed)... in their places we need to bring in some proven performers with no history of injuries... up front, although I do like the possibilities that a player like Lacazette presents, the fact that we had to wait so many years to acquire some true quality at the striker position falls once again squarely at the feet of Wenger... this issue highlights the ultimate scam being perpetrated by this club since the arrival of Kroenke: pretend your a small market club when it comes to making purchases but milk your fans like a big market club when it comes to ticket prices and merchandising... I believe the reason why Wenger hasn't pursued someone of Henry's quality, minus a fairly inexpensive RVP, was that he knew that they would demand players of a similar ilk to be brought on board and that wasn't possible when the business model was that of a «selling» club... does it really make sense that we could only make a cheeky bid for Suarez, or that we couldn't get Higuain over the line when he was being offered up for half the price he eventually went to Juve for, or that we've only paid any interest to strikers who were clearly not going to press their current teams to let them go to Arsenal like Benzema or Cavani... just part of the facade that finally came crashing down when Sanchez finally called their bluff... the fact remains that no one wants to win more than Sanchez, including Wenger, and although I don't agree with everything that he has done off the field, I would much rather have Alexis front and center than a manager who has clearly bought into the Kroenke model in large part due to the fact that his enormous ego suggests that only he could accomplish great things without breaking the bank... unfortunately that isn't possible anymore as the game has changed quite dramatically in the last 15 years, which has left a largely complacent and complicit Wenger on the outside looking in... so don't blame those players who demanded more and were left wanting... don't blame those fans who have tried desperately to raise awareness for several years when cracks began to appear... place the blame at the feet of those who were well aware all along of the potential pitfalls of just such a plan but continued to follow it even when it was no longer a financial necessity, like it ever really was...

Last week saw some satisfying predictions on Sunday, as Everton ran out comfortable winners at home to Arsenal - in line with the model's forecasts - and Liverpool won away at West Ham.

John Lewis has long been seen as an important counter-example to the Illyrian model, a case which casts doubt on the economists» gloomy prediction.

The researchers found that changes in CO2 concentrations between 1990 and 2005 followed the 2001 predictions of the computer models «almost exactly» (see graph, right).

Based on a peatland model developed at the University of York and latest climate change predictions, the researchers warn that by 2051 - 80 the dunlin could see a 50 % decline in numbers, with the golden plover down 30 % and the red grouse down by 15 %, all driven by declining abundance of the birds» crane fly prey.

The model is simple because its purpose is not an accurate prediction of how best to protect VIPs, but to see what general lessons we can learn about reducing risks and then apply them to more esoteric forms of risk.

«We see a lot of species» distributions really start to wink out after about 50 years, but it is tricky to look at future predictions because we will have a lot of habitat loss predicted using our models,» McGuire said.

Seeing himself as a strict empiricist whose hurricane predictions are based on decades of «crunching huge piles of data,» Gray is convinced that the atmosphere is too complicated to be captured in computer simulations, at one point fulminating that «any experienced meteorologist that believes in a climate model of any type should have their head examined.»

It then compares the actual behavior of its body with the generated models to see which one made the best predictions, taking the winning model and seeding it into the action in each round.

As can be seen your graph, our climate models make a wide range of predictions (perhaps 0.5 - 5 degC, a 10-fold uncertainty) about how much «committed warming» will occur in the future under any stabilization scenario, so we don't seem to have a decent understanding of these processes.

Initially, because of the predictions of theoretical models, the researchers thought that the electromagnetic radiation they would see would be X-rays.

It is also a prediction of the astronomical model that during historical times there might have occurred events that have been recorded in some way, and man - made structures or carvings might survive that mimic or respond to things that have been seen «on high».

The model is used to test the prediction of (Dullemond et al. 2003) that disks around UX Orionis stars must have a self - shadowed shape, and that these disks are seen nearly edge - on, looking just over the edge of a puffed - up inner rim, formed roughly at the dust sublimation radius.

As you can see, Google hasn't completely rolled out it's prediction model to all users.

In post # 35, pat said:... «When I scan the summary IPCC model predictions I am not very compelled by what I see.

When I look at the comparisons of temperature change vs. model prediction that you showed us, I see something different from what I think that you see.

I should add that I do see the value of models but can not accept without comment the post's conclusion ``... we need to let science run its course and let previous model - based predictions of somewhere between «2040 and 2100 ″ stand.»

This is not particularly surprising, since it is expected that the importance of the new simulations will be seen in the differences between model types (i.e. including carbon cycles, atmospheric chemistry etc.), or in new kinds of diagnostics from say, the initialized decadal predictions, that weren't available before.

You know, looking at trends since the dawn of the industrial age, seeing if they were consistent with his models, and finding that both those and the modern data (however limited) were consistent, he made a prediction.

I'm just a layman, but while denying direct correlation is correct, saying that what we are seeing fits the computer model predictions (even if it is more extreme than most predictions) would also be just as correct and more politcally useful.

The observer would also see that these events are not tractable to analytic prediction beforehand, due to any or several of various regular functions: including definition, modeling, measurement, calculation, experiment control, and repeated verification.

This one at least is consistent with other data, like the rapid decline of Arctic sea ice, way ahead of any model predictions I've seen published prior to the decline.

This can involve «perfect model» experiments (where you test to see whether you can predict the evolution of a model simulation given only what we know about the real world), or hindcasts (as used by K08), and only where there is demonstrated skill is there any point in making a prediction for the real world.

The maximum electron density of the E-layer and the F1 - layer increased slightly (see the figure), and the height of the electron density maximum of the E-region decreased slightly, in qualitative agreement with model predictions.

In reality, when we compare apples to apples — El Niño years to El Niño years — we've seen more than 0.3 °C global surface warming over the past 18 years, which is in line with climate model predictions.

For example Professor Wieslaw Maslowski made a rather bold prediction when he stated according to his model the Arctic will be ice free by the summer of 2013 (see link below)

Then (2004) he saw that his model predictions on warming were not happening (they were exaggerated by 2:1), so he used «circular logic» to come up with the «hidden in the pipeline» postulation.

Kevin Hamilton, who co-authored the report, warns: «If our model results prove to be representative of the real global climate, then climate is actually more sensitive to perturbations by greenhouse gases than current global models predict, and even the highest warming predictions would underestimate the real change we could see.»

Climate models are not as necessary any more because we are now seeing those predictions in real life.

From the evidence she presents, it would be equally justified to argue that the model predictions were wrong to a «startling degree» on the basis that parts of Africa, Asia and South America have seen temperature rises as big as those in Alaska.

Only somebody as blind and deluded as you wouldn't be able to see that Nature has not paid ball with any of the alarmist model predictions.

But yes, if you had bothered to read the editorial, you would see that he is very explicit about showing that modeling does an extremely poor job of making specific predictions about the impacts of climate changes.

This remains to be seen, of course, but it's important to point out that the trospospheric amplification prediction does not originate in the models but in the basic physics of radiative transfer in combination with the Clausius - Clapeyron relationship describing the change in atmospheric water vapor as a function of temperature.

Yet, to answer but another question, if we look at ye old 1988 Hansen graph, you know, the one that got the 1998 El Nino right, we see between 1973 and 1984 a flat eleven year period in Scenario B So what more do the denialists want, good predictions of El Nino, flat decades and more out of a twenty year old model that you can run on a PC.

And the climate models do make predictions (a wide range of them) e.g. see the temperature predictions of the CMP5 models posted by Jimbo in this thread here.

In as much as none of the model scenarios can be validated, all predictions about future climate conditions amount to nothing more that, «Wait to see if our predictions come true; you'll see then.

In particular, I hope that impugning models as a means of rejecting serious concerns about the future consequences of anthropogenic CO2 emissions will be seen as misguided — based on the false assumption that without models, the edifice of climate prediction will collapse.

They provide very significant added regional and local prediction skill beyond what is available from the parent global model (e.g. see http://weather.rap.ucar.edu/model/).

These predictions are correct, although these models failed to predict the strong warming we've seen over the antarctic peninsula.

For a useful critique of model - starting - points which bear no relation to the real - world, see: D. Koutsoyiannis et al (2008) «On the credibility of climate predictions» in Hydrological Sciences 53 (4) August 2008 671-684, who conclude that the GCM models defy normal assessments of validity and should not be relied upon to predict future climate change.

«See my multivariable model and my precise - to - several - decimal places predictions!

Or maybe, «As shown in Figures 1.4 and 1.5, since the end of the 1992 Pinatubo volcano, models have predicted a steady upward trend in global average temperatures, but the observed series have been comparatively trendless, and thus the range of model warming predictions since the early 1990s can be seen to have been biased towards more warming than was subsequently observed.»

However, in a nutshell (see their paper for more, and the figure below, taken from that paper), what Brown and Caldeira did was to emphasize the contributions to temperature prediction of the subset of models which are the most skillful at predicting the present based upon recent observations.

I think the models are poor enough at the present time that making predictions is hazardous but we can see the trendlines.

And stop calling everyone who cant see the match between the two, deniers while you work hard on creating models that actually, you know, make predictions that match observations.

With this information, I examine global climate model predictions of future climate to see whether the models change in what seem to be realistic ways.