Sentences with phrase «talk on climate models»

In the fall course, we watched the TED talk on climate models by Gavin Schmidt, the director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, then spent two illuminating hours with him.

Dana Nuccitelli presented a talk on climate model accuracy — comparing past global temperature projections to observations, and effectively debunking associated myths.

Not exact matches

In examining the ultimate transdisciplinary issue, humanity's evolving two - way relationship with the climate, I've had the rare privilege of studying the whole picture, from the climate models running on supercomputers in Boulder in 1985 to the burning rain forests of the western Amazon in 1989 to the shifting sea ice around the North Pole in 2003 to the contentious climate treaty talks in one city after another.

That may be true if you are talking about climate models, but in determining the impact of higher temperatures on ecosystems and agriculture, knowledge about the MWP and other past temperature extremes is likely very interesting.

I find concerned liberals are loath to talk about how consistently wrong climate models have been or about the «pause» in global warming that has gone on for over fifteen years, while climate skeptics avoid discussion of things like ocean acidification and accelerated melting in Greenland and the Arctic.

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.

Well it depends on whether you are talking about Climate Sensitivity (Charney sensitivity... which is modelled) or Earth System Sensitivity (where things like ice sheet extent, vegetation cover etc are regarded as able to respond quickly to warming).

The author's points on non-linearity and time delays are actually more relevant to the discussion in other presentations when I talked about whether the climate models that show high future sensitivities to CO2 are consistent with past history, particularly if warming in the surface temperature record is exaggerated by urban biases.

With all the talk this week about future climate — the global warming imagined by IPCC crystal ball models, that is — the focus for many is rightly on the gulf between predictions and observations that have taken place so far.

In my experience this is certainly the case if you talk about the simulations as predictions rather than projections — the climate models are not predicting what the weather will be on the 5th of May 2051 — they are providing projections of the climate based on emission scenarios and initial conditions.

In his talk, «Statistical Emulation of Streamflow Projections: Application to CMIP3 and CMIP5 Climate Change Projections,» PCIC Lead of Hydrological Impacts, Markus Schnorbus, explored whether the streamflow projections based on a 23 - member hydrological ensemble are representative of the full range of uncertainty in streamflow projections from all of the models from the third phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project.

I once attempted to talk about the limitations of climate models with Gavin Schmidt on realclimate... Oh.

He had already been warned on this thread that when I had earlier answered a legitimate question from a commenter far more polite and sensible than he, I had replied with a straightforward account of how Professor Lindzen, in a talk that he had given under my chairmanship at the Houses of Parliament, had calculated that if the increase in evaporation from the Earth's surface with warming was thrice that which the models predicted then climate sensitivity was one - third of that which the models predicted.

This weekend, I am listening to the talks at the Rotman Institute Conference on Knowledge and Models in Climate Science: Philosophical, Historical and Scientific Perspectives.

It consisted of two talks: one on Climate services and infectious disease, the second on the link between climate modeling research and climate sClimate services and infectious disease, the second on the link between climate modeling research and climate sclimate modeling research and climate sclimate services

Most of the talk focusses on climate models, and the kinds of experiments you can do with them.

Actually Huang does recognize and talk about the difference in trends derived for a climate model between tas and tos using the GFLD CM2.1 model and there the authors report trend differences from 1875 to 2000 where the ocean air temperature trends are higher than the ocean surface temperature trends on the order of what the Cowtan paper found for several CMIP5 models.

To the extent you want readers to think of climate models as a single collective genre, as represented by a core set of processes «based on fundamental laws of nature» it makes sense to talk about the behaviour of the average of model runs.

A decade earlier even the Russians arguing about climate science on the run - up to the SALT talks, being good materialists, had to concede the diffference between validation and verification — between iterating model runs and finding out more about what goes into them.

Talk to someone who rejects the conclusions of climate science and you'll likely hear some variation of the following: «That's all based on models, and you can make a model say anything you want.»

In support of my understanding I have transcribed below Salby's description the IPCC climate modeling framework (GSMs) at the ~ 28:56 min mark of the podcast of his talk «Global Emission of Carbon Dioxide: The Contribution from Natural Sources» given at the Sydney Institute on 2 Aug 2011.

By consulting climate records and modeling extreme events with and without added greenhouse gases, scientists can talk about how much global warming has increased the chances of extreme events — without blaming any one event on warming.

I do follow this debate from a layman's perspective and the one thing I find really confusing is why when talking about climate science / climate change and the models being used, they never talk about weather modification programs that have been going on for over 70 years around the world.

Others have talked about what this might look like — regional impacts, measurement quality, reduced funding to GCM modeling (consistent with their strength in testing subsystems rather than forecasting climate), and more empirical work and modeling of those systems that have a large impact on areas of risk.

As a partner of the Gauss - Alliance (GA), on 21st June, DKRZ employeesgave talks on the scalability of climate models for the example of HD (CP) 2 and on the improvement of in - and output at tth GA booth DKRZ A-1414.

I can appreciate that curve fitting doesn't really make sense when talking about running climate models initialised on historical data and comparing the output to observations.

The BBC has decided not to every talk to climate skeptics again, in part based on the «evidence» of computer modelling

In examining the ultimate transdisciplinary issue, humanity's evolving two - way relationship with the climate, I've had the rare privilege of studying the whole picture, from the climate models running on supercomputers in Boulder in 1985 to the burning rain forests of the western Amazon in 1989 to the shifting sea ice around the North Pole in 2003 to the contentious climate treaty talks in one city after another.

Hansen states in pretty much any talk he gives that our understanding of climate change is based on three pillars: Current obervations, paleodata, and physics based modeling.