Sentences with phrase «ice models so»

Not exact matches

If we use the logically odd phrase «Word of God» to describe the Bible, with «Word» as the model and «of God» as the qualifier, so that we speak of «hearing» God's Word, we mean that if we follow the verbal pattern formed by the words of scripture, we may find ourselves in a situation in which a disclosure occurs; the «light dawns» or the «ice breaks.»

Modeling studies on geoengineering to reflect sunlight away from the Earth suggest that modifying the planet's reflectivity could slow the meltdown of the Greenland ice sheet in the short term, but not stop it entirely, and could still allow an eventual total meltdown in the next millennia or so.

Using computer modeling to interpret images from NASA's Galileo satellite, Pappalardo and Barr demonstrated that acnelike markings on Europa's surface are probably bits of ice containing minerals such as chloride salts and sulfuric acid, which lower the melting point so the material can rise from deep below.

If that model is wrong, so is the ice mass change inferred from GRACE,» he explained.

So it would be nice for the climate models to have sufficient resolution to be able to predict the impact of changes in coastal sea ice.»

Most important, it relies on the first published results from the latest generation of so - called Earth System climate models, complex programs that run on supercomputers and seek to simulate the planet's oceans, land, ice, and atmosphere.

So, inferring the ice mass change from the total mass change requires a model of all the mass flows within Earth.

«If we could grow icicles on the computer, in a physical way, then we can create virtual models of chasms, caves, ice storms, shut - down airports and so on in days instead of months,» says Batty's colleague Eitan Grinspun.

In this model of Titan, however, the roots extending below the ice sheet are so much bigger than the bumps on the surface that their buoyancy is pushing them up against the ice sheet.

Summer surface meltwater will expand vertical fractures in the ice sheet and lubricate the ice sheet bed, so leading to mechanical breakup by mechanisms that we currently can not model by computer and so can not forecast.

Through a unique combination of field work, satellite data and a climate model, the researchers were able to explain why some parts of the East Antarctica ice shelves are melting so rapidly.

«These are two of the largest and most rapidly changing glaciers in Antarctica, so the potential for their evolution to influence each other is important to consider in modeling ice sheet behavior and projecting future sea level rise,» Dustin Schroeder, a Stanford geophysicist who led the study, told Earther.

I use the Sno ice cream maker since it has a built - in compressor unlike the Cuisinart models which depend on dumping heat into the bowl to work so they always reach the near hard stage not the soft serve stage before I freeze them.

I'm a witty and adventurous guy; athletic but with a weakness for M&M s and the occasional ice cream binge, so I don't have cover model abs.

There is also a new Cold Weather package offered on the Sport S and Rubicon models of the Jeep Wrangler in case you choose to take this SUV out form the Frankfort, IL area so that you can experience this impressive package in areas where snow and ice can happen on a regular basis.

*, one of the best subaru engine models ever made, no paintwork or bodywork, very clean inside and out, automatic, alloys, good tires, the engine area of this car is so clean you could eat off any part of the motor, all wheel drive, ice cold a / c, perfect carfax, rear spoiler, cruise control, all books, 2 keys, this will make someone a great car for many many years to come, will trade, call danny or text danny anytime!

We doubt Motorola would spend too much time adding new features or making too many tweaks to the tablet now that a new model has launched, so we think it's more likely that the company is working on a test version of Ice Cream Sandwich.

What is implicit, I think, in all this «wait for the models» talk is that there is no model for the ocean heat to contact so much ice in just eighty years.

So using a model constrained by observations is quite possibly the best we can do to establish a long - term ice volume record.

In LGM simulations land albedo changes are prescribed (at least in regards to ice sheets and altered topography due to sea level; there are feedback land albedo changes) so are a forcing, whereas sea ice is determined interactively by the model climate, so is a feedback in this framework.

Although there is still some disagreement in the preliminary results (eg the description of polar ice caps), a lot of things appear to be quite robust as the climate models for instance indicate consistent patterns of surface warming and rainfall trends: the models tend to agree on a stronger warming in the Arctic and stronger precipitation changes in the Topics (see crude examples for the SRES A1b scenarios given in Figures 1 & 2; Note, the degrees of freedom varies with latitude, so that the uncertainty of these estimates are greater near the poles).

Since we are talking about the models that are being used today to model the next 50 or so years and that those models don't generally include ice sheet models, it is correct to describe ice sheet changes as forcings in this case.

So the ice ocean physics model can be considered a black box into which you put the atmospheric factors, the box then spits out the response of the ice and ocean to the atmosphere.

Since the projected surface forcing changes come from a climate model (s) the underlying assumption is that the important ice - ocean feedbacks are captured in the superimposed forcing changes, so it really isn't an independent test and not meant to be a substitute for a coupled model.

The argument at its simplest is that since there are individual model runs in the CCSM4 ensemble that are just about as bad as our current reality, we can't rule out the chance that reality will return to the CCSM4 ensemble line — i.e. the decline will slow, and the Arctic will be summer ice - free in «only» 2040 - 2050 or so.

So, if some of these ideas on termination of glaciations are correct (ice - sheet temperature, ocean circulation and CO2), and all of these are omitted from the current model, it leaves open the possibility that a more comprehensive model would get a different result.

None did so before 2012 though, and we know that the model trends speed up as the ice thins.

The strange curvature of the yellow part helps the LED bulb project light in all directions much better than the «ice cream cone» design of so many other LED lights (for example, see the Qnuru and FIRST models)

So to you, when Dr. Maslowski said, «My claim is that the global climate models underestimate the amount of heat delivered to the sea ice by oceanic advection,» You think that he means a few outlier models instead of the main bulk of modeled knowledge?

If you add to this the evidence Roger A. Pielke, Sr. offers in his rebuttal of RC propaganda, I think one can safely and sanely declare that the AGW proponents are working with a house of cards: it looks like a great integrated, well designed structure, a consensus — especially to the so - called environmentalists and to their media and political allies — but so many of its foundational data sets (ocean temps, net ice melt, etc) don't support their model; at the very least, they don't support the hysterical, «save the planet» nuttiness that is rampant today.

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.

So you also contend that climate models show skill and can be relied upon, in addition to highlighting that increased radiative forcing from greenhouses gases is melting the arctic ice.

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.

It is possible that effective climate sensitivity increases over time (ignoring, as for equilibrium sensitivity, ice sheet and other slow feedbacks), but there is currently no model - independent reason to think that it does so.

(The Pan-arctic Ice - Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System is part funded and info supplied by NASA... have they changed the measurement so that 1.5 % sea ice now treated as 100 % sea ice coveIce - Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System is part funded and info supplied by NASA... have they changed the measurement so that 1.5 % sea ice now treated as 100 % sea ice coveice now treated as 100 % sea ice coveice cover?)

But over the last decade or so, glaciologists have come to appreciate that ice sheets are not gigantic lumps of «static» ice; warming effects can cause them to act erratically and to move much faster than simple models suggest.

It has more spatial variability than Lewis's model which has exactly zero, not even land - water - ice, so it is much better than what they are comparing it with.

From this small set, they applied the resulting model to the wider Greenland Ice Sheet, in order to work out the expected sea - level rise just from the most recent observed changes - and so figure out a «committed level of sea - rise».

If the researcher had provided reasonable error estimates for all of the relationships modeled, I think the predictions would have come with very wide error bars, probably even permitting an ice age in time, because so many of the relationships are poorly understood.

The plan they came up with was to announce that (computer model - generated) predictions of sea ice decline due to (computer model - generated) predictions of human - caused global warming are so catastrophic that polar bears should be returned to their previous «vulnerable» classification, despite the fact that by all other criteria they are flourishing.

Climate models are like weather models for the atmosphere and land, except they have to additionally predict the ocean currents, sea - ice changes, include seasonal vegetation effects, possibly even predict vegetation changes, include aerosols and possibly atmospheric chemistry, so they are not like weather models after all, except for the atmospheric dynamics, land surface, and cloud / precipitation component.

So what does the 0 - dimensional energy - balance model predict about heat - waves in Australia, the decay of Arctic sea ice and Amazonian precipitation?

Billions are being spent on all sorts of peripheral work or sea levels, Arctic sea ice extent, etc. as well as model studies on CAGW, so why is no one working on the basics?

«scientists have assumed» «The climate models assume» «assumption that Natural CO2 is totally fixed and unchanging» «if you assume a long lifetime for atmospheric CO2 ″ «falsification of the basic assumption» «it requires assumptions that violate empirical knowledge» «assumed so that the ice cores and modern measurements fit together» «arbitrary and unjustified assumption»

So, for example, under 2C or 3C, all models see an ice - free summer before 2040, whereas under 1.5 C, only around 80 % do by 2100.

Another month has passed and so here is the updated Arctic sea ice volume graph as calculated by the Pan-Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS) at the Polar Science Centice volume graph as calculated by the Pan-Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS) at the Polar Science CentIce Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS) at the Polar Science Center:

If the «boxes» are so large that every land area is considered equal — how are coastal regions and ice - covered areas modelled as they change over the year?

A new model predicts that Arctic ice, which has been declining for roughly three decades, may stabilize in the next 10 years or so, meaning no additional melting, or even expand.

Direct measurements of the AMOC are only available for the past ten years or so, but Yeager et al. present a combination of observation - and model - based evidence that suggests that the Atlantic thermohaline circulation (THC, which is closely related to AMOC) transitioned from a weak state in the 1970s to a strong state in the 1990s and that this strengthening contributed to the accelerated rate of winter sea ice loss that was observed in the late 1990s.

Prof Wadhams said: «His [model] is the most extreme but he is also the best modeller around... It is really showing the fall - off in ice volume is so fast that it is going to bring us to zero very quickly.