Sentences with phrase «better climate observations»

Not exact matches

Nadeau also studies the potential impacts of climate change on species around the globe, using modeling, field observation and experiments to predict where species are most vulnerable and determine how conservation groups can best mitigate the negative impacts of climate change on animal populations.

To get around the problem, Fasullo and Trenberth decided to examine how well 16 global climate models reproduce recent satellite observations of relative humidity in the tropics and subtropics, a quantity that is directly related to cloud formation.

Suomi NPP's job is to collect environmental observations of atmosphere, ocean and land for both NOAA's weather and oceanography operational missions and NASA's research mission to continue the long - term climate record to better understand Earth's climate and long - term trends.

To check their model forecast, as the dry season has gotten underway, the researchers have compared their initial forecast with observations coming in from NASA's precipitation satellite missions» multisatellite datasets, as well as groundwater data from the joint NASA / German Aerospace Center Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) mission.

«I still think it is a good piece of work, puts a limited number of observations in a solid context, does not overinterpret, and does not say this was caused by climate change.»

There are some caveats with their study: The global climate models (GCMs) do not reproduce the 1930 - 1940 Arctic warm event very well, and the geographical differences in a limited number of grid - boxes in the observations and the GCMs may have been erased through taking the average value over the 90 - degree sectors.

(2) a description of current research, observation, and monitoring activities at the Federal, State, tribal, and local level related to the impacts of climate change and ocean acidification on natural resources, as well as identification of research and data needs and priorities;

Instead, the web special opened with «Estimates of future global temperatures based on recent observations must account for the differing characteristics of each important driver of recent climate change», which sounds a bit ho - hum, if not, well, duh?

The climate changes are large and reasonably well constrained by observations.

Looking farther, into the outer solar system, Webb's observations will give us a better picture of the seasonal weather and climate on our giant planets and their moons.

It shows that climate scientists already had a good understanding of the physics 30 years ago, and that their conclusions about anthropogenic warming have been validated by observations.

That's a good observation, especially considering that there is no evidence relative to the question of whether «the climate sensitivity» is even constant.

The ARM Aerosol Measurement Science Group (AMSG) coordinates ARM Climate Research Facility observations of aerosols and atmospheric trace gases with user needs to ensure advanced, well - characterized observational measurements and data products — at the spatial and temporal scales necessary — for improving climate science and model forClimate Research Facility observations of aerosols and atmospheric trace gases with user needs to ensure advanced, well - characterized observational measurements and data products — at the spatial and temporal scales necessary — for improving climate science and model forclimate science and model forecasts.

The team relied on climate modeling as well as observations to show that the effect is already occurring in the Arctic and is expected to increase in the future as the climate warms.

In models run with the GISS forcing data, the «natural + anthropogenic» temperature evolution matches observations very well for a climate sensitivity of 0.75 °C / W / m ², which agrees with the value derived from palaeoclimate data.

By looking at the signatures of climate change in precipitation intensity and comparing that to the internal variability and the observation, the researchers conclude that the probability of intense precipitation on any given day has increased by 7 percent over the last 50 years — well outside the bounds of natural variability.

Only those that can't be constrained using direct observations of the phenomena are available for tuning to get better large scale climate features.

This is quite subtle though — weather forecast models obviously do better if they have initial conditions that are closer to the observations, and one might argue that for particular climate model predictions that are strongly dependent on the base climatology (such as for Arctic sea ice) tuning to the climatology will be worthwhile.

A simple comparison of observations with projections based on real world climate forcings shows a very close match, especially if we take natural unforced variability into account as well (mainly ENSO).

There are some caveats with their study: The global climate models (GCMs) do not reproduce the 1930 - 1940 Arctic warm event very well, and the geographical differences in a limited number of grid - boxes in the observations and the GCMs may have been erased through taking the average value over the 90 - degree sectors.

Instead, the web special opened with «Estimates of future global temperatures based on recent observations must account for the differing characteristics of each important driver of recent climate change», which sounds a bit ho - hum, if not, well, duh?

In these experiments the climate sensitivity was 2.7 deg C for a doubling of CO2, the net aerosol forcing from 1940 to 2000 was around -0.7 W / m2 (55 % of the total forcing, -1.27, from 1850 to 2000), and the ocean uptake of heat was well - matched to recent observations.

In particular, Annan and Hargreaves (2006) used a Bayesian statistical approach that combines information from both 20th century observations and from last glacial maximum data to produce an estimate of climate sensitivity that is much better constrained than by either set of observations alone (see our post on this, here).

Even putting aside the OHC data and fingerprinting, there is absolutely no evidence in model simulations (or in prevailing reconstructions of the Holocene), that an unforced climate would exhibit half - century timescale global temperature swings of order ~ 1 C. I don't see a good theoretical reason why this should be the case, but since Judith lives on «planet observations» it should be a pause for thought.

eg pg xii To improve our predictive capability, we need: • to understand better the various climate - related processes, particularly those associated with clouds, oceans and the carbon cycle • to improve the systematic observation of climate - related variables on a global basis, and further investigate changes which took place in the past • to develop improved models of the Earth's climate system • to increase support for national and international climate research activities, especially in developing countries • to facilitate international exchange of climate data

The agreement of this model with observations is particularly good and perhaps partly fortuitous, given that there is still uncertainty both in the climate sensitivity and in the amplitudes of the aerosol and solar forcings.

The climate changes are large and reasonably well constrained by observations.

What we are seeing with these latest observations regarding Europe's climate, is that NADW formation seems «alive and well» and not in immediate danger of failing.

It shows that climate scientists already had a good understanding of the physics 30 years ago, and that their conclusions about anthropogenic warming have been validated by observations.

The climate models that project greater amounts of warming this century are the ones that best align with observations of the current climate

Improved sea ice parameterisations and a mixing scheme that included the effect of the mechanical stirring by winds in the creation of the mixed layer resulted in control climates that better matched salinity and temperature observations.

The violation of the Third Law will be only temporary as slowly scientific observation and understanding will get the better of the present situation... it is a firm conclusion that the climate change debate is distorted in its presentation and that its alleged scientific conclusions are unsound.

The hottest topic in climate research is the observation that global average surface temperature, as well as satellite observations of temperatures in the atmosphere, has shown little or no warming during the 21st century.

As for the Sun, well, like AnnaV I consider that the 2 by far most important factors in climate evolution is the cloudiness because it governs albedo and the large scale oceans» behaviour because that's where the energy is Again you are so angry at the AGW crowd, that you miss the whole point: the all - important clouds and albedo vary together, but do not vary with the solar cycle, as far as our observations go, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/cloud-cover.png and http://www.leif.org/research/albedo.png

Consequently, short of waiting until after climate change has occurred, the best guide we have for judging model reliability is to compare model results with observations of present and past climates.Our lack of knowledge about the real climate makes it difficult to verify models.

The climate models that project greater amounts of warming this century are the ones that best align with observations of the current climate, according to a new paper from Carnegie's Patrick Brown and Ken Caldeira published...

Therefore, the best temperature observation for comparison with climate models probably falls between the meteorological station surface air analysis and the land — ocean temperature index.

By analyzing surface station observations and the Climate Forecast System (CFS) Reanalyses (CFSR), as well as the NCEP CFS version 2 (CFSv2) reforecast data over 18 summers from 1993 to 2010, it was found that the QBW mode plays a significant role in the formation of episodic diurnal convection.

If only GHG forcing is used, without aerosols, the surface temperature in the last decade or so is about 0.3 - 0.4 C higher than observations; adding in aerosols has a cooling effect of about 0.3 - 0.4 C (and so cancelling out a portion of the GHG warming), providing a fairly good match between the climate model simulations and the observations.

As the paper says «We suggest that the stadium wave hypothesis holds promise in putting in perspective the numerous observations of climate behavior; offers potential attribution and predictive capacity; and that through use of its associated proxies, may facilitate investigation of past behavior that may better inform our view of future behavior.

«It would be good to see their predictions tested with actual observations of ecosystem recovery from drought across a range of ecosystems and climate zones.»

It's good to see an abrupt CE awakening, but frankly you guys are 3 years behind and you've completely missed the 2 most crucially informative solar - terrestrial - climate observations.

Similarly there is a good deal we do know about the physics of climate which suggests there is good reason to expect the climate to be warming, even though the observations do not unequvocally show this if you look at too short a period.

In a weekly climate - focused newsletter, the SEPP argued that, «given poor geographic coverage of the surface - air observations, the movement of observation points on the surface, and the frequent manipulation of the data by the reporting entities, not clearly publically disclosed, the margin of error is likely to be well above + / - 0.1 deg C and it is actually unknown.»

I'm puzzled by your assignment of only a 30 percent probability to the proposition that «Global climate model simulations that include anthropogenic forcing (greenhouse gases and pollution aerosol) provide better agreement with historical observations in the second half of the 20th century than do simulations with only natural forcing (solar and volcanoes).»

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.»

Global climate model simulations that include anthropogenic forcing (greenhouse gases and pollution aerosol) provide better agreement with historical observations in the second half of the 20th century than do simulations with only natural forcing (solar and volcanoes).

This manual observation approach worked well when the number of climate stations was small

The whole purpose of climate models is to explore how well their results can emulate — based on known principles alone — the in situ observations.

But the NASA researchers said their approach, described in the journal Nature Climate Change, is the first to test the idea using satellite observations, as well as direct temperature measurements of the upper ocean.