Sentences with phrase «earlier observations and modeling»

Based on earlier observations and modeling by Falke and a team of graduate students and faculty at CSU, the Arikaree River in eastern Colorado, which is fed by the aquifer and used to flow about 70 miles, will dry up to about one - half mile by 2045.

Not exact matches

Without any detailed observations of what reionization looked like, many models of the early universe «just kind of pick one time and say, «The universe is reionized now!»

They then used the earlier observations of the changing abundances of the three pairs of predators and prey — leveraging data sets collected by other scientists — to show how the models would apply.

«This study takes advantage of more than 25 years of observations and detailed model hindcasts to comprehensively demonstrate that these early predictions were right.»

«Using observations and model simulations, we've demonstrated that rising Pacific - Atlantic temperatures were the major driver of rapid Arctic warming in the early 20th century.»

In February, Australian and American researchers who compared ocean and climate modeling results with weather observations published findings in Nature Climate Change advancing earlier studies that explored the oscillation's global influence.

Starting with data taken from observations of the cosmic background radiation — a flash of light that occurred 380,000 years after the big bang that presents the earliest view of cosmic structure — the researchers applied the basic laws that govern the interaction of matter and allowed their model of the early universe to evolve.

ALMA observations by a team of astronomers led by Nadia Murillo and Shih - Ping Lai have found the youngest disk around a protostar to date, at an earlier stage than predicted by most models.

For the earlier generation of models, results are based on the archived output from control runs (specifically, the first 30 years, in the case of temperature, and the first 20 years for the other fields), and for the recent generation models, results are based on the 20th - century simulations with climatological periods selected to correspond with observations.

«We are still very uncertain as to the modes of black - hole formation and growth in the early Universe... so we do not have a leading model for this observation to pose problems to,» Chris Willott, an astronomer at the Canadian Astronomy Data Centre in Victoria, reportedly said.

Only then will we be positioned to address the big questions and concerns facing the field, including that of «fade out» — the observation that positive effects of exposure to high - quality early education are not maintained through the school years — and those of scale, including what models work, for whom, and under what conditions.

All of this is consistent with my earlier observation: the Investment Return calculated with the Gordon Model is close to 5.9 % these days, where Gordon Model estimates are most accurate between Years 5 and 15.

This has been documented since (at least) the very earliest model papers by Manabe and colleagues and in the observations since at least a 1994 paper by Christy and McNider in Nature.

SAT observations and model simulations indicate that the nature of the arctic warming in the last two decades is distinct from the early twentieth - century warm period.

In fact, there has been no clear large - scale surface warming for more than 16 years now, and a new paper published earlier this month in the prestigious journal Nature Climate Change affirms the climate models inability to correctly simulate these observations.

In an earlier study (Labe et al., 2018a), we show that the CESM - LENS sea ice thickness compares well with satellite observations and output from an ice - ocean model.

However, I took a look at the earlier ocean temperature observations from the same source he used, and the model Hansen used does a very poor job of replicating those.

As an ironic footnote to our earlier controversy, AR5 now cites McKitrick et al 2010 and concedes that the discrepancy between models and observations in the tropical troposphere is unresolved.

The following graph compares models to observations over the period 1979 - 2013, long enough to place the 1998 El Nino in the middle, but excluding the earlier hiatus of the 1950s and 1960s.

However, limited observations from the late 19th and early 20th centuries combined with models suggest that tropospheric O3 has increased from a global mean value of 25 DU (where 1 DU = 2.71016 O3 molecules / cm2) in the pre-industrial era to 34 DU today.

«The assessment is supported additionally by a complementary analysis in which the parameters of an Earth System Model of Intermediate Complexity (EMIC) were constrained using observations of near - surface temperature and ocean heat content, as well as prior information on the magnitudes of forcings, and which concluded that GHGs have caused 0.6 °C to 1.1 °C (5 to 95 % uncertainty) warming since the mid-20th century (Huber and Knutti, 2011); an analysis by Wigley and Santer (2013), who used an energy balance model and RF and climate sensitivity estimates from AR4, and they concluded that there was about a 93 % chance that GHGs caused a warming greater than observed over the 1950 — 2005 period; and earlier detection and attribution studies assessed in the AR4 (Hegerl et al., 2007b).&rModel of Intermediate Complexity (EMIC) were constrained using observations of near - surface temperature and ocean heat content, as well as prior information on the magnitudes of forcings, and which concluded that GHGs have caused 0.6 °C to 1.1 °C (5 to 95 % uncertainty) warming since the mid-20th century (Huber and Knutti, 2011); an analysis by Wigley and Santer (2013), who used an energy balance model and RF and climate sensitivity estimates from AR4, and they concluded that there was about a 93 % chance that GHGs caused a warming greater than observed over the 1950 — 2005 period; and earlier detection and attribution studies assessed in the AR4 (Hegerl et al., 2007b).&rmodel and RF and climate sensitivity estimates from AR4, and they concluded that there was about a 93 % chance that GHGs caused a warming greater than observed over the 1950 — 2005 period; and earlier detection and attribution studies assessed in the AR4 (Hegerl et al., 2007b).»

Playing with the starting value only determines whether the models and observations will appear to agree best in the early, middle or late portion of the graph.

There are still issues with the tropical upper - tropospheric hot spot in the observations, but earlier mismatches between data and models were larger and it was found the observations had errors; plus, that hot spot is not a «fingerprint» for AGW; it is a general to warming.

You can see the excellent correlation between sea level rise from thermal expansion models and observations in an earlier Rahmstorf paper.

Recent attempts to evaluate climate model projections in CMIP5 during the early 21st century have shown striking discrepancies between model projections and observations.

The 0C - 10C range for 2xCO2 climate sensitivity encompasses ALL the published estimates I have seen, from the Spencer and Lindzen lower end of 0.6 C (from CERES and ERBE satellite observations) and the Forster and Gregory range of 0.9 C to 3.7 C (based on «purely observational evidence» — see earlier thread) to IPCC's range of 2.0 C to 4.5 C (from model simulations based largely on theoretical deliberations rather than physical observations).

Gray points to observations that show that (contrary to IPCC model assumptions) precipitation increases linearly as SST goes up (refer to Wentz et al. report cited earlier), that there is no observed upper level moistening to maintain constant RH as models are predicting (refer to Minschwaner + Dessler) and that there is no observed upper tropospheric enhancement of warming as assumed by models (missing «hot spot»).

Although not specifically tested, these findings are in line with early socio - cognitive models of learning through experience or observation [22], [55] the notion that repeated exposure to risk - glorifying media may instigate risk taking behaviors by the activation of positive risk - related cognitions, beliefs and behavioral scripts [23] and additionally, through changes in the self - concept related to risk - tasking [21].