Not exact matches
As noted above, the final results for the previous fiscal
year coupled with about six months of data for the current fiscal
year are required before one can properly
assess the current results against the latest official
forecast.
Although this is encouraging news, at least five to six months of financial data are required before one can properly
assess the current results to the June 2011 Budget
forecast of $ 32.3 billion for the fiscal
year as a whole.
Although this is encouraging news, at least five to six months of financial data are required before one can
assess the current results to the March 2012 Budget
forecast of $ 21.1 billion for the fiscal
year as a whole.
Although this is encouraging news, at least five to six months of financial data are required before one can
assess the current results to the June 2011 Budget
forecast of $ 32.3 billion for the fiscal
year as a whole.
This is encouraging news, although at least five to six months of financial data are usually required before one can properly
assess the current results to the latest budget
forecast for the
year as a whole.
Why isn't a TCR type of simulation, but instead using actual history and 200
year projected GHG levels in the atmosphere, that would produce results similar to a TCR simulation (at least for the AGW temp increase that would occur when the CO2 level is doubled) and would result in much less uncertainty than ECS (as
assessed by climate model dispersions), a more appropriate metric for a 300
year forecast, since it takes the climate more than 1000
years to equilibrate to the hypothesized ECS value, and we have only uncertain methods to check the computed ECS value with actual physical data?
Longer is better for
assessing climate
forecasts, and so Armstrong has agreed to extend the bet for another ten
years, sticking with the original 2007 global mean temperature as the starting point.