Sentences with phrase «validity of climate models»

However, Laden noted the study doesn't actually «say that one or another scenario is likely or less likely» and «says nothing about the validity of climate models.»

I try to explain to all Global Warming detractors of your ilk... that it's fine to argue over scientific points and ask questions about the validity of Climate Models...... But the second you start chucking out comments like yours....»

In addition, more extensive and more accurate scientific measurements are needed to test the validity of climate models to increase confidence in their projections.

This discrepancy had previously been used to challenge the validity of climate models used to detect and attribute the causes of observed climate change.

They do, however, raise serious questions about the validity of climate models (which are, of course, used to predict future warming and are used to set public policy and sway public opinion) and how much we are actually warming.

This brings the second issue: how do you check the validity of a climate model?

Not exact matches

As far as i was aware the climate sensitivity issue still remains, as too do the questions over the validity of the temperature records (raising the distinct possibility that the change you are trying to detect is smaller than the error limits themselves) and the modelling parameters.

As I said in my reply to Wegman, ordinarily I would agree with him that science shouldn't be conducted through blogs, but in the case of climate science an opinion about global warming in general, or the validity of multiproxy reconstructions or climate models in particular seems to constitute for some a political viewpoint that must be either trumpeted from the rooftops or suppressed by any means possible regardless of its scientific merit.

Those numbers were based on crude climate models whose validity had never been tested by observations — and even today, there remains no validation for the climate models that are at the heart of most claims of climate catastrophe.

In a climate case, more so than any other policy - related case, courts need to inform themselves of the range of scientific opinions, the specific points of agreement and disagreements, the assumptions made by scientists, their theories and reasoning, the validity and accuracy of the models used, the unknowns, uncertainties, and gradations, etc..

All of this confirms the validity of Dr Gray's comments that validation is mandatory for a climate model and that,

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.

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.

Therefore Bad Andrew, your commendable quest for verified validity (V&V) in our understanding of climate - change should focus upon the literature that validates and verifies climate - change models by comparison to multiple, independent, redundant channels, that cover all of the earth's energy - entropy reservoirs.

In the climate change field, it may be that the modellers, who in some cases appear to try to drive policy, need someone in my kind of role, with enough comprehension to assess the validity of the models but with a better understanding of, and ability to communicate, the policy relevance of the material.

The answer will tell us a lot about the validity of the model - based estimate for climate sensitivity used by IPCC (based on an «argument from ignorance», as has been pointed out)..

But running point scale intercomparisons of the sort Koutsoyiannis did tells you little about the validity of the model with respect to the purpose for which it is designed; but does underline the limits of global models for regional climate work.

... Abraham et al. take great pains to fault the validity of a simple 1D climate model to examine climate sensitivity.

the computer climate modelers require that the «Science is Settled» assumption to support the validity of their approach and models.

Climate models are not generally subjected to as stringent criteria of validity as weather models.

Because our models should embody all physical knowledge of climate, its status including validity requires this step.

This unfortunately confirms the validity of the Global Climate Models which means we are warming and it is human caused.

Essex, McKitrick and Andresen (2007) have questioned the validity of the global temperature anomaly as an indicator of climate, but since the IPCC continues to compare it with climate models, we should expect agreement.

When a continuing series of peak hottest years occurs every four or five years, each peak a little hotter than the last, then there is an obvious temptation to view that particular metric as being a more useful indicator of the validity of the AR5 climate models than would be the central trend of the observations.

page 6, on the «Exxon Knew» insinuation: No mention is made of Exxon's forceful statement about the Inside Climate News organization selectively choosing information, and careful reading of actual Exxon documents (e.g. this one) shows Exxon people questioning the validity of models predicting future climate condClimate News organization selectively choosing information, and careful reading of actual Exxon documents (e.g. this one) shows Exxon people questioning the validity of models predicting future climate condclimate conditions.

Even if climate models were perfect — and we know they are not, which is why they are called «models» — one would have to question the validity of any such exercise.

I suspect these are the questions that would be at the root of any doubts about the validity climate models.

On the issue of to what extent attribution «evidence» derived from GCMs / AOGCMs (the validity of which is dependent on their climate sensitivities being realistic) can be relied on, three academics who have published extensively on climate sensitivity, Chris Forest, Peter Stone and Andrei Sokolov, wrote about GCMs in «Constraining Climate Model Parameters from Observed 20th century Changes» (Tellus A, 2008) as fclimate sensitivities being realistic) can be relied on, three academics who have published extensively on climate sensitivity, Chris Forest, Peter Stone and Andrei Sokolov, wrote about GCMs in «Constraining Climate Model Parameters from Observed 20th century Changes» (Tellus A, 2008) as fclimate sensitivity, Chris Forest, Peter Stone and Andrei Sokolov, wrote about GCMs in «Constraining Climate Model Parameters from Observed 20th century Changes» (Tellus A, 2008) as fClimate Model Parameters from Observed 20th century Changes» (Tellus A, 2008) as follows:

For a much more detailed discussion of a sceptical scientist's view of the validity of using model output as the basis for policing making in climate science, take a look at Dr Roy Spencer's explanation of how these models work and why he thinks they are flawed:

«Validity of models — there are many climate models, not just one.

I've previously drawn attention to this need to ensure validity of statistical inference as a reason why climate modelling is not immune from these findings, but some here continue to seek refuge in the first point above i.e. this can't be right because it is inconsistent with the science.