Sentences with phrase «ice modeling papers»

Not exact matches

The paper also describes an atmosphere - ocean modeling study of feedback loops caused by ice sheet melting under 2 °C conditions.

«The main difference between my model and others is that I suggest that the ice cap formed early, when Pluto was still spinning quickly, and that the basin formed later and not from an impact,» said Hamilton, who is lead author of the paper.

Data collected by ship and model simulations suggest that increased Pacific Winter Water (PWW), driven by circulation patterns and retreating sea ice in the summer season, is primarily responsible for this OA expansion, according to Di Qi, the paper's lead author and a doctoral student of Liqi Chen, the lead PI in China.

Their paper, published in Physics of Fluids, from AIP Publishing, provides a model for four stages of ice formation on aircraft wings.

Current climate models do not take into account glacial flow and therefore underestimate the impact of glacial melt and the calving of ice flows, the researchers argue in a paper detailing the findings in today's Science.

«The primary uncertainty in sea level rise is what are the ice sheets going to do over the coming century,» said Mathieu Morlighem, an expert in ice sheet modeling at the University of California, Irvine, who led the paper along with dozens of other contributors from institutions around the world.

From at least Lorius et al (1991)-- when we first had reasonable estimates of the greenhouse gases from the ice cores, to an upcoming paper by Schneider von Deimling et al, where they test a multi-model ensemble (1000 members) against LGM data to conclude that models with sensitivities greater than about 4.3 ºC can't match the data.

In his paper, he proposed a few theories as to what might have gone wrong, including the idea that the ice age model he used was inaccurate or that the estimations of 20th - century sea - level rise were too high.

It's a long paper with a long title: «Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and modern observations that 2 oC global warming could be dangerous».

If we had done a simple back - of - the - envelope estimate, surely someone would have criticized us for not using a climate model... Besides we also looked into regional patterns and the sea - ice response in our paper, something one can not do without a climate model.

Mike's work, like that of previous award winners, is diverse, and includes pioneering and highly cited work in time series analysis (an elegant use of Thomson's multitaper spectral analysis approach to detect spatiotemporal oscillations in the climate record and methods for smoothing temporal data), decadal climate variability (the term «Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation» or «AMO» was coined by Mike in an interview with Science's Richard Kerr about a paper he had published with Tom Delworth of GFDL showing evidence in both climate model simulations and observational data for a 50 - 70 year oscillation in the climate system; significantly Mike also published work with Kerry Emanuel in 2006 showing that the AMO concept has been overstated as regards its role in 20th century tropical Atlantic SST changes, a finding recently reaffirmed by a study published in Nature), in showing how changes in radiative forcing from volcanoes can affect ENSO, in examining the role of solar variations in explaining the pattern of the Medieval Climate Anomaly and Little Ice Age, the relationship between the climate changes of past centuries and phenomena such as Atlantic tropical cyclones and global sea level, and even a bit of work in atmospheric chemistry (an analysis of beryllium - 7 measurements).

In a more recent paper, our own Stefan Rahmstorf used a simple regression model to suggest that sea level rise (SLR) could reach 0.5 to 1.4 meters above 1990 levels by 2100, but this did not consider individual processes like dynamic ice sheet changes, being only based on how global sea level has been linked to global warming over the past 120 years.

See e.g. this review paper (Schmidt et al, 2004), where the response of a climate model to estimated past changes in natural forcing due to solar irradiance variations and explosive volcanic eruptions, is shown to match the spatial pattern of reconstructed temperature changes during the «Little Ice Age» (which includes enhanced cooling in certain regions such as Europe).

The paper uses evidence and modeling to explain how the sun - blocking impact from a 50 - year stretch of unusually intense eruptions of four tropical volcanoes caused sufficient cooling to produce a long - lasting shift in the generation and migration of Arctic Ocean sea ice, with substantial consequences for the Northern Hemisphere climate that lasted centuries and left a deep imprint on European history.

For example, Hansen's recent paper on Scientific Reticence is quite explicit that much of important physics of ice sheets is not included in the models, hence his raising of matters to do with nonlinear behaviour (eg disintegration) of ice sheets.

Don't get me wrong, I like this paper a lot, and i hope more ice models will explicitly incorporate CHW, rather than parametrizing by melt area and other such approximation.

The papers questioned everything from the relative role of natural mechanisms in changes to the climate system vis - à - vis increased CO2 concentrations, the allegedly «unprecedented» nature of modern climate phenomena such as warming, sea levels, glacier and sea ice retreat, and the efficacy and reliability of computer climate models for projecting future climate states.

I suspect that it looked OK in your view or you didn't check; «the paper i cited talks of the hiatus in global temperatures for the past 20 years or so, that the Little Ice Age was global in extent, and that climate models can not account for the observations we already have let alone make adequate predictions about what will happen in the future.

There are many who will not like this recent paper published in Nature Communications on principle as it talks of the hiatus in global temperatures for the past 20 years or so, that the Little Ice Age was global in extent, and that climate models can not account for the observations we already have let alone make adequate predictions about what will happen in the future.

Originally posted on Open Mind: A new paper by Hansen et al., Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and modern observations that 2 °C global warming is highly dangerous is currently under review...

Steven — Yet you expect me to believe in a theory based on a single paper presenting «results from a regional ice — ocean model» which is contradicted by the available empirical evidence?

The climatological model output paper you referred to does indeed define ice free to be anywhere between no ice at all and 1000000 square kilometres.

I also snarked about ice model skill assessment in a 1998 paper, which finally got responded to (and has been percolating) in about 2006.

Recent paper on influence of melt ponds on the accuracy of models for arctic sea ice.

Similarly other Zwally detractors pointed to papers such as Harig 2015 that claimed Antarctica was losing ice, but Harig 2015 used GIA models that were well known to over-estimate glacial rebound.

With regards to climate models, there is a new paper by Jiping Liu in PNAS that infers from CMIP5 climate model simulations that the Arctic will be ice free in September by around 2054 - 58.

The paper concluded that «current climate models are still quite poor at modelling past sea ice trends» after including a graph showing a decline in sea ice starting at the beginning of the «satellite era» in 1979.

The paper on model runs with extremely rapid loss of sea ice?

Also there are some papers that have been ignored, such as Rampal 2011: IPCC climate models do not capture Arctic sea ice drift acceleration: Consequences in terms of projected sea ice thinning and decline

A further question is that if this paper sheds new light on a possible factor in climate change which «would require higher resolution sea - ice and ocean models than used in todays global climate models», does this not suggest that todays global climate models are insufficiently able to project climate change?