Sentences with phrase «climate models differences»

Koster et al. (2004, 2006) and Guo et al. (2006) report on a new model intercomparison activity, the Global Land Atmosphere Coupling Experiment (GLACE), which compares among climate models differences in precipitation variability caused by interaction with soil moisture.

Not exact matches

Not only was Prisle successful, but running simulations with her model made a big difference in climate predictions.

It's for this reason that it's important to understand the differences in responses between geoengineering experiments, said Ben Kravitz, a climate modeler at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory who helps run the international Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project.

While rainfall intensity was more realistically predicted by the high - resolution climate models, particularly for summer convective storms, these storms do not make a significant difference to summer phosphorus losses.

There is an important difference between physical climate models and economic ones: namely, physics.

«When we saw all five modeling teams reporting little difference in climate change, we knew we were onto something.»

Their model simulates watershed rainfall under various climate change scenarios that reflect differences in the degree of wetness or storminess.

As the model runs progressed, those tiny differences grew and expanded, producing a set of climate simulations useful for studying questions about variability and change.

I must object to the idea put forward in your feature on climate models that «it is the differences between...

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.

«Differences Between Seasonal and Mean Annual Energy Balance Model Calculations of Climate and Climate Sensitivity.»

Harvey, B. J., Shaffrey, L. C. & Woollings, T. J. Equator - to - pole temperature differences and the extra-tropical storm track responses of the CMIP5 climate models.

«Some have speculated that this difference occurs because climate models respond too sensitively to greenhouse gas increases, and thus overestimate climate change.»

Instead of looking at the differences in the climate effects of two sources that add the same total energy to the climate system, we constrained the model so those sources had the same climate effects.

The differences between the «natural forcing» model predictions and measured global temperatures were used to determine AGHG forcing functions for their final climate prediction model.

Mann suggests that differences between the palaeo record and model simulations are a result of shortcomings in the proxy data, not flaws in climate models, as he explains to Carbon Brief:

«[O] ne would need to be extremely cautious in ensuring that any difference observed between models and proxies isn't simply reflecting the fact that proxies and models are themselves representing different aspects of the climate system.

But to reiterate: the difference between climate sensitivity estimates based on land vs. ocean data indicates that something is seriously wrong, either with the model, or the data, or some of both.

IIRC, the authors were perturbed by the fact that small changes in the input - value mix of the model produced large differences in the rate of climate change.

Differences in projections of warming by the end of the century appear to be related to assumptions made on emission trajectories and the ambitiousness of climate policies beyond 2030 rather than differences in methodology or climatDifferences in projections of warming by the end of the century appear to be related to assumptions made on emission trajectories and the ambitiousness of climate policies beyond 2030 rather than differences in methodology or climatdifferences in methodology or climate modeling.

However, satellite observations are notably cooler in the lower troposphere than predicted by climate models, and the research team in their paper acknowledge this, remarking: «One area of concern is that on average... simulations underestimate the observed lower stratospheric cooling and overestimate tropospheric warming... These differences must be due to some combination of errors in model forcings, model response errors, residual observational inhomogeneities, and an unusual manifestation of natural internal variability in the observations.»

«A deeper look at the differences between the different land surface and Earth system models may help better constrain the response of mid-latitude ecosystems to climate variability.»

Yes if models were simply a curve fitting exercise, then any difference between predicted and actual climate would falsify a model.

Dave Andrews (27)-- The important difference is that the climate models are based on physics whilst the economic ones are not.

«And given you are seemingly happy with the climate modelling of Hansen et al (2011), what is the fundamental difference between the finding of that paper and all the ones you rejected @ 142 & @ 170?

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.

But to answer those questions, the results of climate model work reported in the IPCC TAR (see Fig. 7.2) show huge differences among models in the overall cloud radiative forcing.

Also keep in mind that the climate sensitivity (this is the physical aspect now) is a bit high in the 1988 model paper, so you'd expect some differences between observations and models.

In this regard it's important to consider the difference between Crowley et al (2000), who use an energy balance model with a sensitivity of 2.0 to get something like the MBH99 reconstruction, and the ECHO - G climate model, which has a sensitivity of 3.5 and reasonable stratospheric component and gives somthing like Moberg.

David's comments reminded me of something that Suki Manabe and I wrote more than 25 years ago in a paper that used CLIMAP data in a comparative evaluation of two versions of the 1980s - vintage GFDL model: «Until this disparity in the estimates of LGM paleoclimate is resolved, it is difficult to use data from the LGM to evaluate differences in low latitude sensitivity between climate models.»

For example, I'd draw your attention to Figure 9.7, p. 766, of Chapter 9 of AR5, which shows significant differences in model performance, albeit not assessed in relation to climate sensitivity.

Speaking of lies, would you care to enumerate the differences between climate and weather models?

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0628.1 In our discussion exploring the (very minor) differences in results when using different datasets we said: - «Dataset creation approaches that infill missing data areas may give overconfidence to climate changes in regions where there are no direct measurements, when compared with model simulations that have data in those regions.»

Of course, there are some differences — the butterfly effect has a basis in physical reality, so as our understanding of physical processes and the ability to mathematically model them improves, so will our ability to bridge the gap between predicting weather and climate.

IIRC, the authors were perturbed by the fact that small changes in the input - value mix of the model produced large differences in the rate of climate change.

Raw climate model results for a business - as - usual scenario indicate that we can expect global temperatures to increase anywhere in the range of 5.8 and 10.6 degrees Fahrenheit (3.2 to 5.9 degrees Celsius) over preindustrial levels by the end of the century — a difference of about a factor of two between the most - and least - severe projections.

This difference between simulated and observed trends could be caused by some combination of (a) internal climate variability, (b) missing or incorrect radiative forcing and (c) model response error.

«Differences between Seasonal and Mean Energy Balance Model Calculations of Climate Sensitivity.»

The disagreement with climate modelers arises because, first they do not understand error propagation and so reject its diagnosis, and second they don't understand the difference between a physical error statistic and an energetic perturbation, and so treat the statistic as though it impacts the model expectation values — in this case air temperature.

But Paul Williams of the University of Reading and Manoj Joshi of the University of East Anglia report in Nature Climate Change that they decided to look at computer models to see whether climate change would make a diffClimate Change that they decided to look at computer models to see whether climate change would make a diffclimate change would make a difference.

Projections differ widely among climate models, and differences in the solar reflection by low clouds over tropical oceans account for much of the spread in climate projections across current models.

• The reviewer has mistakenly assumed that differencing between modeled climate observables is identical to differencing between modeled and physically measured climate observables, items 4 and 8.

The overall level of consistency between attribution results derived from different models (as shown in Figure 9.9), and the ability of climate models to simulate large - scale temperature changes during the 20th century (Figures 9.5 and 9.6), indicate that such model differences are likely to have a relatively small impact on attribution results of large - scale temperature change at the surface.

Lastly, deficiencies in a match of models vs. observations (whether a forecast, or a simulation of a past climate event) may not be entirely due to problems inherent within the model, but a problem in the experimental setup, or at least a difference in what the modeler was trying to answer.

Yet one might ask to what extent the number of climate models and / or their level of structural differences matter.

The differences between parametrizations are an important reason why climate model results differ.

An explanation for the difference between twentieth and twenty - first century land - sea warming ratio in climate models

Before anyone yells «adjustments», this appears to be a real difference of instruments, but solving this mystery turns up a rather major flaw in climate models.

Differences between high and low projections in climate models used by the IPCC stem mainly from uncertainties over feedback mechanisms - for example, how the carbon cycle and clouds will react to future warming.

This > 200 % difference between «climate persistence» and «white noise» «climate» models is vitally important when designing hydropower dams, ocean breakwaters, and similar power and protective structures, and in modeling climate change.