Sentences with phrase «temperature for modelers»

There is a single output variable they both care about (security price for traders, global temperature for modelers).

Not exact matches

To reconstruct accurate climate records for the past and forecast climate changes for the future, modelers need to know just how passive trees really are when it comes to air temperature.

For the North Atlantic, however, assuming this new model is right (and it still needs to be validated by other modelers), the pollution - driven respite the area has had from the ongoing rise in worldwide temperatures may well be over for goFor the North Atlantic, however, assuming this new model is right (and it still needs to be validated by other modelers), the pollution - driven respite the area has had from the ongoing rise in worldwide temperatures may well be over for gofor good.

Furthermore since modelers tweak cloud parameters to match global albedo and achieve energy balance, and because the AR4 models achieve a good match to global average surface temperatures, there are at least partially compensating errors elsewhere in the models for both albedo and temperature.

(2) The reported NASA temperature data glitch discovered by Canadian Computer Analyst Steve McIntyre that wrongly kicked all temperature records up several tenths of a degree was a severe setback for AGW modelers.

This is typically what the models predict / hindcast (GISS Model E): There is no temperature hump in the mid 20th century — so that, like the MWP, is a problem for the modelers.

Unfortunately, the figure also confirms that the spatial resolution of theoutput from the GCMs used in the Mediterranean study is too coarse for constructing detailed regional scenarios.To develop more detailed regional scenarios, modelers can combine the GCM results with output from statistical models.3 This is done by constructing a statistical model to explain the observed temperature or precipitation at a meteorological station in terms of a range of regionally - averaged climate variables.

A scientist would never focus on ONLY one variable, CO2, probably a very minor variable with no correlation with average temperature, when there are dozens of variables affecting Earth's climate... and then further focus only on manmade CO2, for political reasons (only that 3 % of all atmospheric CO2 can be blamed on humans... which is the goal of climate modelers... along with getting more government grants.)

All Kaufman did is, like every other climate modeler, find some value for aerosols that plugged temperatures to the right values.

I spent a week listening to 80 paleoclimatoligists and climate modelers argue about the interpretation of the data from ice and sediment cores, how it eliminated some proposed explanations for what was driving the changes in temperature and rainfall, and how it suggested other possible explanations.

The sensitivity of the models is, as I think you are saying, constrained by it's parametrizations, which are bounded by observational data on TOA radiation data etc. (although not all very tightly constrained) but this is not what is being questioned about the models, rather the issue is whether the model hindcasts matching historical temperatures to some degree is evidence that they have correct physics, or is merely a result of modelers making the choices for inputs which will produce a reasonable result.

bender, the climate scientists and climate modelers who work for the same organization I do are quite adamant in stating that there has been nothing resembling a flatlining of global mean temperature over the past decade.

In spite of the inability of weather models to forecast more than about 10 days ahead, the climate modelers have deluded themselves, their employers, the grant giving agencies, the politicians and the general public into believing that they could build climate models capable of accurately forecasting global temperatures for decades and centuries to come.

If that were the case, the over-prediction of temperature wouldn't be a current issue for the modelers.

«In response to those who complained in my recent post that linear trends are not a good way to compare the models to observations (even though the modelers have claimed that it's the long - term behavior of the models we should focus on, not individual years), here are running 5 - year averages for the tropical tropospheric temperature, models versus observations...»

In the meantime, their results have tentatively breathed a small hint of life back into the climate models, basically buying them a bit more time — time for either the observed temperatures to start rising rapidly as current models expect, or, time for the modelers to try to fix / improve cloud processes, oceanic processes, and other process of variability (both natural and anthropogenic) that lie behind what would be the clearly overheated projections.

Mr. Nordhaus also omits any mention of the fact that the modelers had to insert fudge factors for atmospheric particle concentrations to induce the models to predict the observed falling temperatures between 1940 and 1960.

For future projections, GFDL atmospheric modelers have developed global models capable of simulating many aspects of the seasonal and year - to - year variability of tropical cyclone frequency in a number of basins, using only historical sea surface temperatures as input.

«We might forgive these modelers if their forecasts had not been so consistently and spectacularly wrong,» they wrote, claiming that the «forecasts for future temperatures have continued to be too warm.»

Gavin A. Schmidt, a climate modeler at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said that the estimated decline in ocean circulation should have produced a perceptible decline in surface temperatures, but that no such dip had yet been measured.

For what it's worth, I observed at the time that the post-WW2 decline in temperatures presented a problem for models, given the relatively continuous increase in CO2 levels and the SST changes seemed to me to make life easier for modelers seeking to link 20th century temperature changes to CFor what it's worth, I observed at the time that the post-WW2 decline in temperatures presented a problem for models, given the relatively continuous increase in CO2 levels and the SST changes seemed to me to make life easier for modelers seeking to link 20th century temperature changes to Cfor models, given the relatively continuous increase in CO2 levels and the SST changes seemed to me to make life easier for modelers seeking to link 20th century temperature changes to Cfor modelers seeking to link 20th century temperature changes to CO2.