Sentences with phrase «talking about climate models»

Is he talking about climate models?

But we are talking about climate models and dubious error - filled data and great amounts of self - dealing and rent seeking by the AGW community.

I should say though that I'm talking about climate models.

Is he talking about climate models?

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.

There is a lot of talk about climate models not being validated sufficiently, which is obviously not possible until their projections come to pass.

Not exact matches

Penn State climate modeler Michael Mann talks about what computer models can tell us — and what they don't need to.

Doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide is an oft - talked - about threshold, and today's climate models include accepted values for the climate's sensitivity to doubling.

Here's my uneducated question — while I respect Gavin's comments about not abusing the science, it seems to me that many measurable indicators of climate change are (to the extent I can tell) occurring / progressing / worsening faster than predicted by most models, whether we're talking about atmospheric CO2 levels, arctic ice melting, glacial retreat, etc..

It's not like there isn't anything climate - y to talk about (sea ice minimums, extreme events, climate model tunings, past «hyperthermals»... etc.).

Lets talk about models» climate sensitivity.

The same is true for the models of ANY complex system, whether we are talking about the stock market, economics, population, the weather, or the climate.

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.

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.

When we talk about future climate change, our discussion often stalls at the uncertainties inherent in scientists» statistical models and forecasts.

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).

We talked about a lot of things, but my main point was that whether in finance or in climate, computer models typically perform what I call knowledge laundering.

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.

I am talking about a consensus of multiple lines of evidence (empirical evidence in addition to modeling, logic etc.) When there is a large degree of uncertainty, as there is in climate science, a consensus of evidence is most definitely very important.

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.

But you * do * keep addressing the issue as if what sort of attitude one shoudl adopt about the self - government project I'm talking about in Fla were somehow an extensio nof the debate about «climate change models» & «climate change science» in some broader sense.

Watch videos by climateprediction.net climate scientists, talking about the science of climate change and our climate modelling projects.

Finally, you talk about how to «build confidence» in the models... this is just like our prior discussion about building confidence in climate science.

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.

However, its long been apperent that while climate models and econ models have similar levels of scientific validity, economists are far more willing to talk about assumptions their models make, when and why those assumptions might or might not hold, etc., than climate scientists.

If Mr. Rose really wants to improve his reporting and do a general service of advancing a true understanding of the issue of anthropogenic climate change, he needs to do a comprehensive article about Earth's energy budget, and state quite clearly all the different spheres (all layers of the atmosphere, hyrdosphere, crysosphere, and biosphere) in which the signal of anthropogenic warming is both modeled as impacting and then talk about what is data is actually saying in terms of Earth's energy imbalance in all these spheres.

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

Please don't hijack the science, and tell people like me, who understand most of the science (other than the intricacies of climate models) better than 99 % of US citizens, and have followed the science better than 99.8 % of US citizens, that we don't know what we are talking about.

We're talking about the latter and you clearly believe in your particular model here i.e. you believe it is better at describing the climate than a whole raft of competing models.

So when he is pointing out «possible common errors» in the climate models... I guess he knows what he is talking about...

So he managed to refute Naomi Oreskes 1995 paper then about climate models in his TED talk?

For this reason, Shackley et al. found that many climate modellers didn't want to talk openly about their adjustments, in case critics of man - made global warming (who they referred to as «climate contrarians») would use them to question the reliability of the models:

Given that law shows that Gleick's behaviour is a criminal offence and given that the whole climate science sand castle is built upon dodgy models and statistics, it seems that you've not bothered to understand what you talk about.

You could go further and talk about tuning to «emergent constraints» for climate sensitivity, observational metrics that are correlated with climate sensitivity when looking across model ensembles.

Myhrvold and Wood are so sure that they're right about climate models and geoengineering that they seem to blow off the serious problems and ignore the experts who actually know what the hell they're talking about — experts like Ken Caldeira and his fellow practicing climatologists.

Having talked to Feynman about climate modeling hype in «nuclear winter» s heyday, and been to Cargo Cult country as well, I can testify to the strong structural correspondence of the Melanesian cult's signature artifacts and that wonderful cultural construct, the Wegman Rep0rt.

If the climate models that are used to predict the reaction to the climate from natural and anthropogenic effects include positive feedbacks independent of the warming mechnism, then your statement about such feedbacks not being invoked when talking about natural warming is manifestly incorrect.

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.

By not specifying which climate models you are talking about, and making completely general statements like this, you are guaranteed to be wrong.

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.

As for your comment, the fundamental point here is that there can be no «planet climate model» and «planet observations» when talking about attribution.

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: Scientists can't even predict the weather next week, so why should we believe what some climate model tells us about 100 years from now?

Chris Colose: As for your comment, the fundamental point here is that there can be no «planet climate model» and «planet observations» when talking about attribution.

Offering an inspiring model for climate action begins with changing the way we talk about carbon.

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.

Detection and attribution of climate change in the 20th Century gives us some confidence that we know what we are talking about, as do model - data comparisons for paleo - climate.

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.