I strongly
agree with the observations in the article that assessing whether lending has been hurt by additional regulations or not is very difficult to measure.
This does not, however, provide an answer to the much more difficult question of determining how well a model must
agree with observations before projections made with it can be deemed reliable.
To the extent that such models do
n't agree with observations of aerosols as a predictor, BC17 methodology (assuming I understand it) would underweight that model's contribution to the high end of the climate sensitivity range.
Even in the warmest scenario, fewer than 5 % of model simulations of the long - term, 80 - year trend
agree with observations by 2020 and fewer than 2.5 % agree by 2030.
Current multiverse
models agree with observations only if certain parameters are given specific values — if the forces holding matter together were slightly stronger or weaker, for instance, it would be impossible for us to be here to observe the universe.
Current models
agree with observations only if certain parameters take particular values — if the forces holding matter together were stronger or weaker, for instance, the universe would not look the way it does.
But the data
agreed with observations from the Special Sensor Microwave Imager / Sounder (SSMIS) from the U.S. Defense Meteorological Satellite Program.
«There are models that predict that [nickel - 48] has such a short lifetime that we should not have been able to see it, and other models
agree with our observations because they predict that it lives at least a few microseconds.»
with respect to «It is seen from the figure with both natural and human forcing that climate models simulations
agree with observations very well during the period 1970 - 2000.»
The 95 % figure quoted is just a subjective average and only means that participants think that progress has been made, In modelling if one says that the model is 95 % accurate, that would mean many runs have been done and for 95 % of the total time covered by the runs the time function
output agreed with observation or experiment with the real system; Clearly that is not what the IPCC meant to say.
The model's
response agrees with observations, including the long record of geopotential height variations (a function of temperature throughout the lower atmosphere), implying that these observed 10 - 12 year oscillations are likely driven, at least partially, by solar variability.
Even religious type, subconsciously would
agree with this observation, they're just not honest enough to admit it.
Everybody would
agree with this observation.