Sentences with phrase «between climate model output»

Among these, he noted the close agreement between climate model output and observations down to spatial scales smaller than continents, which forms a part of the detection and attribution literature.

In other words, the current generation of climate models (CMIP5) agrees better among themselves than the prior generation (CMIP3), i.e., there is less of a spread between climate model outputs, because they are converging on the same results.

Not exact matches

Studies of the Arctic system, connections between atmosphere and sea ice, and between the Arctic and the global system using remote sensing, conventional measurements, and output from global climate models.

Recall that in their 2001 Third Assessment Report, the IPCC gives a range of temperature increase between 1990 and 2100 of 1.4 and 5.8 ºC based upon the simulated output from 7 different climate models run under 35 different emissions scenarios — each of which the IPCC claimed as having an equal probability of occurrence.

On a similar & related note, I wonder if anyone has considered a convolutional model to describe the relationship between forcings & outputs & if that is a useful model to describe the climate system.

I am confident that, even if we were able to find some «agreement» between the outputs of the current generation of climate models and the available measurements and observations, we ought to be cautious, because we can be almost 100 % certain that the apparent agreement is fundamentally incorrect.

Brandon, the answer is already in my original comment: 1) None of the climate models has been subjected to a formal V&V process (no validation report available) 2) None of the models is able to formally hind - cast past observations and as a matter of fact there is a significant mismatch between models outputs and measurements over [1880 — 1970] and [2000 — 2010] periods, which means that all models would have failed to pass such a validation process.

Comparisons between these reconstructions and the output of Earth system models provide evaluation opportunities to improve our understanding of climate forcings on time scales that are not adequately represented by the instrumental record.

In part one, I wrote «In the simplest of terms, every study that has attributed the recent warming of the 1980s and 90s to rising CO2 has been based on the difference between their models» reconstruction of «natural climate change» with their models» output of «natural climate change plus CO2.»

Overall, these results suggest that the «models are statistically indistinguishable from the truth» paradigm, which was used in the main text, is more appropriate to ensure consistency between models and observations, and avoids over emphasizing the climate models outputs.

«Meaningless distinctions between «projections» and «predictions» will be unlikely to convince consumers of climate models to overlook experience that does not jibe with modeled output.»

Examining the output of climate models run under increases in human emissions of greenhouse gas and aerosols, Troy Masters noted a robust relationship between the modeled rate of heat uptake in the global oceans and the modeled climate sensitivity.

As annual integrated absorbed shortwave radiation is measured to be the same for the two hemispheres (in spite of the huge difference between their clear sky albedos), and this feature is replicated by no computational climate model, generating realistic regional scenarios from output of said models is currently hopeless.