Sentences with phrase «include ice sheet models»

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.

Not exact matches

Yet these model - based estimates do not include the possible acceleration of recently observed increases in ice loss from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets.

To investigate this, DeConto and Pollard developed a new ice sheet - climate model that includes «previously under - appreciated processes» that emphasize the importance of future atmospheric warming around Antarctica.

Climate models are not yet able to include full models of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and to dynamically simulate how ice sheet changes influence sea level.

The revised estimate for sea - level rise comes from including new processes in the 3 - dimensional ice sheet model, and testing them against past episodes of high sea - levels and ice retreat.

A new method that includes the effects of elevation and region was developed using a detailed regional model of the Greenland ice sheet.

The IPCC also predicts greater sea - level rise than it did in 2007, as it now includes models of ice - sheet movements.

The IPCC is predicting greater sea level rise than it did in 2007, as it now includes models of ice sheet movements.

Melt water runoff from a melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet is a potentially major source of freshening not yet included in the models found in the MMD (see Section 8.7.2.2).

This setup consists of an atmospheric model with a simple mixed - layer ocean model, but that doesn't include chemistry, aerosol vegetation or dynamic ice sheet modules.

Proposed explanations for the discrepancy include ocean — atmosphere coupling that is too weak in models, insufficient energy cascades from smaller to larger spatial and temporal scales, or that global climate models do not consider slow climate feedbacks related to the carbon cycle or interactions between ice sheets and climate.

The periods considered were mainly the Pleistocene ice age cycles, the LGM and the Pliocene, but Paul Valdes provided some interesting modeling that also included the Oligocene, the Turonian, the Maastrichtian and Eocene, indicating the importance of the base continental configuration, ice sheet position, and ocean circulation for sensitivity.

[Response: Indeed it is the latter; most global climate models do not (yet) include continental ice sheet models.

The essence of the comment is a model that we put together that (I think) is the simplest that you can derive that includes a carbon cycle, ice sheets, and allows for the standard «Charney» sensitivity (ECS) and the ESS to vary independently.

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.

But again the «models» estimate includes an observed ice sheet mass loss term of 0.41 mm / year whereas ice sheet models give a mass gain of 0.1 mm / year for this period; considering this, observed rise is again 50 % faster than the best model estimate for this period.

• Dynamical processes related to ice flow not included in current models but suggested by recent observations could increase the vulnerability of the ice sheets to warming, increasing future sea level rise.

These values have been estimated using relatively simple climate models (one low - resolution AOGCM and several EMICs based on the best estimate of 3 °C climate sensitivity) and do not include contributions from melting ice sheets, glaciers and ice caps.

However, substantial ice sheet changes that occurred during the last hundreds to few thousands of years remain poorly quantified and are not included in our model.

The vulnerability of the ice sheets to warming could be increased by dynamical processes related to ice flow (not included in current models but suggested by recent observations) thereby increasing future sea level rise.

The US CLIVAR Greenland Ice Sheet - Ocean Interactions Working Group was formed to foster and promote interaction between the diverse oceanographic, glaciological, atmospheric and climate communities, including modelers and field and data scientists within each community, interested in glacier / ocean interactions around Greenland, to advance understanding of the process and ultimately improve its representation in climate models.

Prediction Continued improvements in modeling decadal - scale dynamics — and longer, when ice - sheet and deep - ocean dynamics are included — will continue to affirm the multi-decade arc of strong climate science that concludes «Hansen's worldview is right.»

JIGSAW (GEO) is a set of algorithms designed to generate complex, variable resolution unstructured meshes for geophysical modelling applications, including: global ocean and atmospheric simulation, numerical weather prediction, coastal ocean modelling and ice - sheet dynamics.

And older climate models did not include dynamic ice sheet vulnerabilities — like high latent - heat ocean water coming into contact with the submerged faces of sea - fronting glaciers, the ability of surface melt water to break up glaciers by pooling into cracks and forcing them apart (hydrofracturing), or the innate rigidity and frailty of steep ice cliffs which render them susceptible to rapid toppling.

Prof David Vaughan, at the British Antarctic Survey and not part of the research team, said: «The new model includes for the first time a projection of how in future, the Antarctic ice sheet may to lose ice through processes that today we only see occurring in Greenland.

Active physical processes are well - known ways of breaking up ice sheets but had not been included in complex 3D models of the Antarctic ice sheet before.

Sea level from equations (3.3) and (3.4) is shown by the blue curves in figure 2, including comparison (figure 2c) with the Late Pleistocene sea - level record of Rohling et al. [47], which is based on analysis of Red Sea sediments, and comparison (figure 2b) with the sea - level chronology of de Boer et al. [46], which is based on ice sheet modelling with the δ18O data of Zachos et al. [4] as a principal input driving the ice sheet model.

Second, the IPCC clearly states «models [of sea level rise] used to date do not include uncertainties in climate - carbon cycle feedbacks nor do they include the full effect of changes in ice sheet flow.»

More elaborate and accurate approaches, including use of models, will surely be devised, but comparison of our result with other approaches is instructive regarding basic issues such as the vulnerability of today's ice sheets to near - term global warming and the magnitude of hysteresis effects in ice sheet growth and decay.

That is an estimate based on models that don't include the kind of rapid ice sheet dynamics that are already occurring.

So all it takes is some surface reconstructions and some flux data from a crude GCM to provide a test for a continental scale model of ice sheets that incorporate basic physics and include the Schoof mechanism.

Dynamical processes related to ice flow — which are not included in current models but suggested by recent observations — could increase the vulnerability of the ice sheets to warming, increasing future sea level rise.

Such solecisms throughout the IPCC's assessment reports (including the insertion, after the scientists had completed their final draft, of a table in which four decimal points had been right - shifted so as to multiply tenfold the observed contribution of ice - sheets and glaciers to sea - level rise), combined with a heavy reliance upon computer models unskilled even in short - term projection, with initial values of key variables unmeasurable and unknown, with advancement of multiple, untestable, non-Popper-falsifiable theories, with a quantitative assignment of unduly high statistical confidence levels to non-quantitative statements that are ineluctably subject to very large uncertainties, and, above all, with the now - prolonged failure of TS to rise as predicted (Figures 1, 2), raise questions about the reliability and hence policy - relevance of the IPCC's central projections.

The term Earth System Model is a little ambiguous with some people reserving that for models that include a carbon cycle, and others (including me) using it more generally to denote models with more interactive components than used in more standard (AR4 - style) GCMs (i.e. atmospheric chemistry, aerosols, ice sheets, dynamic vegetation etc.).

Such accelerated flow leads to increased ice discharge into the ocean, but the relevant dynamical processes are not properly understood nor included in continental ice - sheet models, the main difficulty being the treatment of grounding - line migration in response to increased melting of ice by the ocean.

These include intrinsic limitations in current observational capabilities (e.g., spatial and radiometric resolution of currently available spaceborne sensors) and limitations on how accurately surface energy balance models handle ice sheet albedo.