Sentences with phrase «ensemble are in forced»

Not exact matches

In other words, before the sexual revolution of the sixties and seventies, the «yes» and «no,» nowadays promoted as the be-all and end - all of sexual etiquette, were given moral force by a restraining and clarifying ensemble of conventions and threshold spaces that the colleges and universities saw fit to sweep away virtually overnight.

The initial LASSO implementation on the Cumulus cluster will be for ARM's Southern Great Plains site in Oklahoma and will focus on high - resolution model simulations of shallow clouds driven by ensembles of forcing inputs.

M2009 use a simplified carbon cycle and climate model to make a large ensemble of simulations in which principal uncertainties in the carbon cycle, radiative forcings, and climate response are allowed to vary, thus yielding a probability distribution for global warming as a function of time throughout the 21st century.

Diverse casts in films like Star Wars: The Force Awakens, The Last Jedi, the Fast and the Furious series, Twilight and Hunger Games have always yielded big business, but Black Panther, with its near - total Black ensemble cast, is a groundbreaking landmark for Hollywood.

And Jackman will have a part in DAYS, but look at the lineup... I mean: Stewart, McKellen, McAvoy, Fassbender, Lawrence, Page... and counting... Berry will probably join forces, too... no, this will be the very definition of an ensemble movie.

And this is an ensemble piece, notwithstanding the tour de force nature of Metcalf's role and her work in it.

The plot forced Burgundy away from the news desk, and he is separated from his crew for quite a long time (much longer than the similar move in Anchorman, which amounted to only a few scenes), and Ferrell by himself without Paul Rudd, David Koechner, and Steve Carell to play off doesn't work nearly as well as the ensemble moments.

Isaac will next be seen in A Most Violent Year, set for release in December, and is also part of the ensemble for Star Wars: The Force Awakens.

Dragon Blade (R for graphic violence) Jackie Chan stars in this historical epic, set during the Han Dynasty, as a military commander who joins forces with a rogue Roman general (John Cusack) to protect China from power - hungry emperor Tiberius (Adrien Brody) Ensemble cast includes Peng Lin, Sharni Vinson, Mika Wang, Si Won Choi and Yang Xiao.

It's easily the funniest scene in a film full of funny ones, mostly arising from an ensemble cast that seems to intrinsically know how far is just far enough in pushing for a laugh without coming across as forcing it.

Though it's not an exact science, usually you can predict the winners based on who actually shows up — and the other ensemble cast nominees for films such as the frontrunner «The Descendants» and «Martha Marcy May Marlene» attended in full force, even if that required Elizabeth Olsen to skip a class at NYU.

Following Cage's solo series, he and Jones joined forces in ensemble series The Defenders, just as Black Panther is set to figure in Marvel's grand crossover movie Avengers: Infinity War, this summer.

Tim Etchells (b. 1962 UK) is an artist, performance maker and writer, best known for his role as the artistic director of the performance ensemble Forced Entertainment, based in Sheffield (UK) and founded in 1984.

This will allow us to compare models to data under realistic 20th century forcings (where realistic is an ensemble in itself...).

Whereas the appearance of similar warming events to the 1920 / 30s event at different times, with that warming event not being consistenly present in all ensemble members at the same times is evidence that it was an outcome of internal variability, not a forced response.

In the paper, you mention that... and indeed the time history of Greenland meltwater runoff is not included as a forcing in the CMIP5 ensemble (2nd para before endIn the paper, you mention that... and indeed the time history of Greenland meltwater runoff is not included as a forcing in the CMIP5 ensemble (2nd para before endin the CMIP5 ensemble (2nd para before end).

The point of this is that; the forced response should appear in all ensemble members as a consistent feature but incidents of internal variability should appear at different times or not at all *.

1) Regarding the 1970s shift, Ray mentions that: «It's not evident why the smooth trend in 20th century climate forcing should give rise to such an abrupt shift, and indeed the individual members of the model ensemble do not show a clearly analogous shift.»

It's not evident why the smooth trend in 20th century climate forcing should give rise to such an abrupt shift, and indeed the individual members of the model ensemble do not show a clearly analogous shift.

Recently I have been looking at the climate models collected in the CMIP3 archive which have been analysed and assessed in IPCC and it is very interesting to see how the forced changes — i.e. the changes driven the external factors such as greenhouse gases, tropospheric aerosols, solar forcing and stratospheric volcanic aerosols drive the forced response in the models (which you can see by averaging out several simulations of the same model with the same forcing)-- differ from the internal variability, such as associated with variations of the North Atlantic and the ENSO etc, which you can see by looking at individual realisations of a particular model and how it differs from the ensemble mean.

We can derive the underlying trend related to external forcings from the GCMs — for each model, the underlying trend can be derived from the ensemble mean (averaging over the different phases of ENSO in each simulation), and looking at the spread in the ensemble mean trend across models gives information about the uncertainties in the model response (the «structural» uncertainty) and also about the forcing uncertainty — since models will (in practice) have slightly different realisations of the (uncertain) net forcing (principally related to aerosols).

Thus, the positive λSW of the CMIP5 ensemble average and the resulting energy accumulation by enhanced ASR under GHG forcing can be expected based only on the robust physics of the water vapor feedback and the surface albedo feedback in the absence of any changes in clouds... ``

Ensemble simulations conducted with EMICs (Renssen et al., 2002; Bauer et al., 2004) and coupled ocean - atmosphere GCMs (Alley and Agustsdottir, 2005; LeGrande et al., 2006) with different boundary conditions and freshwater forcings show that climate models are capable of simulating the broad features of the observed 8.2 ka event (including shifts in the ITCZ).

Natural variability from the ensemble of 587 21 - year - long segments of control simulations (with constant external forcings) from 24 Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 3 (CMIP3) climate models is shown in black and gray.

The forcings and model simulations of the future are together called the CMIP5 ensemble and are what is shown in Figure 1a and b.

IPCC relied on climate models (CMIP5), the hypotheses under test if you will, to exclude natural variability: «Observed Global Mean Surface Temperature anomalies... lie well outside the range of Global Mean Surface Temperature anomalies in CMIP5 simulations with natural forcing only, but are consistent with the ensemble of CMIP5 simulations including both anthropogenic and natural forcing...» (Ref.: Working Group I contribution to fifth assessment report by IPCC.

A comparison with the CMIP3 ensemble shows that the skill in the northern North Atlantic and eastern Pacific is most likely due to the initialisation, whereas the skill in the subtropical North Atlantic and western North Pacific are probably due to the forcing.»

Experimental ensemble forecasts are made at a number of universities, such as the University of Washington, and ensemble forecasts in the US are also generated by the US Navy and Air Force.

Sylvain, one of the main challenges of verifying climate models on a time scale of 1 - 2 decades is that natural forcing (solar and volcanic) is unknown plus the decadal ocean cycles are not deterministic and will not be simulated in a way that matches observations unless a very large ensemble is used.

The ensemble mean is monotonically increasing in the absence of large volcanoes, but this is the forced component of climate change, not a single realisation or anything that could happen in the real world.

For my PhD research, I am working in Dr. Gudrun Magnusdottir's Research Group to apply a series of GCM ensemble experiments to understand the dynamics and relative forcings of natural and anthropogenic climate change on this high latitude circulation and resultant teleconnection.

These NAO - induced «book - ends» of future climate trends are very similar to those depicted in the individual simulations shown earlier (Fig. 1), but instead of case studies, they are based on the dominant structure of internal atmospheric circulation variability across all 40 ensemble members superimposed upon the forced response.

Since MEA stated (in Figure 1 of the SI) that ensemble - average temperature response anomalies were relative to 1850, and nowhere did the paper suggest that forcings were treated differently, as anomalies relative to 1850 - 59 or any other period, it seemed to me to be natural to use the forcing values as they were.

The ensemble consists of seven members each of which uses a unique set of NCEP / NCAR atmospheric forcing fields from recent years, representing recent climate, such that ensemble member 1 uses 2005 NCEP / NCAR forcing, member 2 uses 2006 forcing..., and member 7 uses 2011 forcing... In addition, the recently available IceBridge and helicopter - based electromagnetic (HEM) ice thickness quicklook data are assimilated into the initial 12 - category sea ice thickness distribution fields in order to improve the initial conditions for the predictionIn addition, the recently available IceBridge and helicopter - based electromagnetic (HEM) ice thickness quicklook data are assimilated into the initial 12 - category sea ice thickness distribution fields in order to improve the initial conditions for the predictionin order to improve the initial conditions for the predictions.

7 In such an ensemble, each individual simulation is run with the same time - dependent climate forcings (greenhouse gases, aerosols, etc), but with different, but equally

M2009 use a simplified carbon cycle and climate model to make a large ensemble of simulations in which principal uncertainties in the carbon cycle, radiative forcings, and climate response are allowed to vary, thus yielding a probability distribution for global warming as a function of time throughout the 21st century.

AR5 (as Nic Lewis regularly points out) concludes a most likely net aerosol offset of -0.9 watt / M ^ 2, which is bizarrely inconsistent with the average level of aerosol offsets used by the AR5 climate model ensemble (much higher offsets in the models), and most consistent with a fairly low (< 2C per doubling) climate sensitivity to forcing.

Another important point to bear in mind (and this is really important) which is the mean of an ensemble of model runs is not a projection of the trajectory of the Earth's actual climate, just of theofirced component (i.e. the climate change that results from a change in the forcings, rather than sources of internal climate variability).

In CMIP5 there is no correlation between aerosol forcing and sensitivity across the ensemble, so the implication that aerosol forcing affects the climate sensitivity in such «forward» calculations is false.&raquIn CMIP5 there is no correlation between aerosol forcing and sensitivity across the ensemble, so the implication that aerosol forcing affects the climate sensitivity in such «forward» calculations is false.&raquin such «forward» calculations is false.»

In CMIP5 there is no correlation between aerosol forcing and sensitivity across the ensemble, so the implication that aerosol forcing affects the climate sensitivity in such «forward» calculations is false... The spread of model climate sensitivities is completely independent of historical simulations.&raquIn CMIP5 there is no correlation between aerosol forcing and sensitivity across the ensemble, so the implication that aerosol forcing affects the climate sensitivity in such «forward» calculations is false... The spread of model climate sensitivities is completely independent of historical simulations.&raquin such «forward» calculations is false... The spread of model climate sensitivities is completely independent of historical simulations.»

The influence of reduced solar forcing (grand solar minimum or geoengineering scenarios like solar radiation management) on the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) is assessed in an ensemble of atmosphere — ocean — chemistry — climate model simulations.

Arguing against the model vs real world comparison «Here Judith is (I think) referring to the mismatch between the ensemble mean (red) and the observations (black) in that period... However, the observations are well within the spread of the models and so could easily be within the range of the forced trend + simulated internal variability.»

At least two «counterfactual» ensembles will be simulated in addition to that: one with the greenhouse gas response removed, representing the «world that might have been» without anthropogenic greenhousre gas forcing and the other one without some key climate relevant aerosols in the atmosphere.

These results suggest that up to 35 % of the range in longwave forcing in the ensemble for the period 2080 to 2099 is due to the spread in forcing estimates for the specified increase in CO2.

A recent study by C10 analysed a number of different climate variables in a set of SMEs of HadCM3 (Gordon et al. 2000, atmosphere — ocean coupled version of HadSM3) from the point of view of global - scale model errors and climate change forcings and feedbacks, and compared them with variables derived from the CMIP3 MME. Knutti et al. (2006) examined another SME based on the HadSM3 model, and found a strong relationship between the magnitude of the seasonal cycle and climate sensitivity, which was not reproduced in the CMIP3 ensemble.

«The pause» is the least of the problem — the real problem is that if one rejects the obviously broken GCMs from inclusion in an «ensemble» on the basis of imaginary statistical juju, the evidence of warming in the UNbroken GCMs is in line with a continuation of natural warming that has persisted (very likely) from the LIA to the present, modulated by other natural forcings like the PDO.

Our analysis reveals that in the CMIP3 MMEs (both ensembles by AOGCM and ASGCM), all the climate variables we investigated (SAT, PRCP, SLP, TOA SW and LW radiation, cloud radiative forcing, clear - sky radiation) are reliable, with one marginally significant exception found out of the large number of statistical tests (SAT for the ASGCM).

Using results from the HadCM2 four - member ensemble experiments, Giorgi and Francisco (2000), for example, suggest that uncertainty in future regional climate change associated with internal climate variability at sub-continental scales (107 km2), is generally smaller than the uncertainty associated with inter-model or forcing differences.

The ensemble average over the three realisations, also shown in the diagram, is an estimate of the model s forced climate change where some of this natural variability has been averaged out.

No other of the > 30 single forcing runs display a difference from the mean GMST change of the remainder of the ensemble that is more than a fraction of that applying to LU run 1, and there is no physical reason for a massive ocean anomaly to develop in response to very weak land use change forcing.