Sentences with phrase «modeled sea ice loss»

Somewhere we have to have a list of the various elements that have been proposed to explain the difference between modeled sea ice loss and actual loss.

Not exact matches

Consistency and discrepancy in the atmospheric response to Arctic sea - ice loss across climate models.

This gives confidence in the predictions of the current generation of ice - sheet models which are used to forecast future ice loss from Antarctica and resulting sea - level rise.»

However, a number of studies have indicated that climate models underestimate the loss of Arctic sea ice, which is why the models might not be the most suitable tools to quantify the future evolution of the ice cover.

Dirk Notz and Julienne Stroeve have now compared corresponding model calculations with data from satellite measurements, and discovered that the climate models underestimate the loss of Arctic sea ice.

The findings are relevant to modern - day atmospheric models and to an understanding of what a loss of sea ice means to both sea and land temperatures.

«When we look forward several decades, climate models predict such profound loss of Arctic sea ice that there's little doubt this will negatively affect polar bears throughout much of their range, because of their critical dependence on sea ice,» said Kristin Laidre, a researcher at the University of Washington's Polar Science Center in Seattle and co-author of a study on projections of the global polar bear population.

He says previous predictive models of Greenland's ice loss did not adequately take into account the faster movement of its southern glaciers, which is accelerating the amount of ice entering the ocean: «Greenland is probably going to contribute more to sea level rise, and faster than predicted by these models.»

Using the sophisticated UK Met Office climate model, Dr Screen conducted computer experiments to study the effects of Arctic sea - ice loss on the NAO and on Northern European winter temperatures.

Conversely, sea - ice loss in the Antarctic would be expected to increase California's precipitation, according to the study's modeling.

Kuhn, from Germany's Alfred Wegener Institute, added, «This gives confidence in the predictions of the current generation of ice sheet models which are used to forecast future ice loss from Antarctica and resulting sea - level rise.»

The remote impacts of Arctic sea - ice loss can only be properly represented using models that simulate interactions among the ocean, sea ice, land and atmosphere.

Computational models that simulate the climate such as CAM5, which is the atmosphere component of the Community Earth System Model used in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 5th Assessment, are used to predict future climate changes, such as the Arctic sea ice loss.

Joughin et al. (2010) applied a numerical ice sheet model to predicting the future of PIG, their model suggested ongoing loss of ice mass from PIG, with a maximum rate of global sea level rise of 2.7 cm per century.

The new findings stem from an analysis that links a widely - used framework for projecting how sea level around the world will respond to climate change to a model that accounts for recently identified processes contributing to Antarctic ice loss.

Our modelled values are consistent with current rates of Antarctic ice loss and sea - level rise, and imply that accelerated mass loss from marine - based portions of Antarctic ice sheets may ensue when an increase in global mean air temperature of only 1.4 - 2.0 deg.

I'm not arguing that Tietsche is wrong vis a vis «tipping points» — I'm arguing that climate * is * driving sea ice loss and that the model Tietsche used lacked the proper mechanisms to reliably extrapolate forwards.

Most past modeling experiments that investigated the atmospheric response to Arctic change only considered the loss of sea ice, which of course misses much of the effect of Arctic amplification.

The sea ice loss rate seems to be very sensitive to model resolution and has improved in CMIP5 — implicating aspects of the model structure as the main source of the problem.

Models Coming into Agreement on Widespread Effects of Arctic Sea Ice Loss https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/models-coming-agreement-widespread-effects-arctic-sea-ice-loss

Global climate model projections (in CMIP3 at least) appear to underestimate sea ice extent losses with respect to observations, though this is not universally true for all models and some of them actually have ensemble spreads that are compatible with PIOMAS ice volume estimates and satellite observations of sea ice extent.

The lag between decreases in sea ice extent during late summer and changes in the mid-latitude atmospheric circulation during other seasons (like autumn and winter, when the recent loss of sea ice is much smaller) have been demonstrated empirically, but have not been captured by existing dynamical models.

Polar bears haven't seen what the ice models are predicting if we don't deal with the warming patterns and sea ice loss.

Of course, the IPCC models didn't predict the Arctic sea ice loss, either.

This makes me curious about how sea ice loss is modeled.

Combined climate / ice sheet model estimates in which the Greenland surface temperature was as high during the Eemian as indicated by the NEEM ice core record suggest that loss of less than about 1 m sea level equivalent is very unlikely (e.g. Robinson et al. (2011).

That typically occurs in ice - sheet model simulations that involve more than about 2 m of sea - level - equivalent mass loss.

Individual responses continue to be based on a range of methods: statistical, numerical models, comparison with previous rates of sea ice loss, composites of several approaches, estimates based on various non sea ice datasets and trends, and subjective information (the heuristic category).

Models created by experts said such a dramatic loss of sea ice would cause a sharp drop in the polar bear population and threaten their very survival.

Individual responses continue to be based on a range of methods: statistical, numerical models, comparison with previous rates of sea ice loss, estimates based on various non-sea ice datasets and trends, and subjective information (the «heuristic» category).

But once the ongoing effect of warming shocks to the glacier front were modeled for the next 90 years, a maximum realistic sea - level rise from Greenland's ice - loss was 2 inches.

The divergence in timing of sea ice loss between models and data — decades as represented by ice volume in Figure 3 — is physically irreconcilable.

What I am saying is that if Arctic sea ice loss is occurring faster than models predict, then, all else being equal, the earth should be warming faster than models predict.

It may be worth considering that if climate models are underplaying the actual amount of Arctic sea ice loss, and if Arctic sea ice loss is a positive feedback on global temperature, then, the observed rate of Arctic sea ice loss ought to be applying a warming pressure over and above that from greenhouse gas emissions.

The graph shows IPCC model runs projecting arctic sea ice loss into the future.

The global climate models used in the 2007 IPCC report also failed to acount for the extent of Arctic sea ice loss (Figure 9).

A classic case in point was the discovery that field observations of the loss of arctic sea ice showed that by 2007 it had advanced to a level predicted by the mean of models of that loss as occurring in the 2100s, while that mean was used as the consensus projection in AR4.

Some previous models project an ice - free summer period in the Arctic Ocean by 2040 (Holland et al., 2006), and even as early as the late 2030s using a criterion of 80 % sea ice area loss (e.g., Zhang, 2010).

The July 2010 Sea Ice Outlook Report is based on a synthesis of 17 individual pan-Arctic estimates using a wide range of methods: statistical, numerical models, comparison with observations and rates of ice loss, composites of several approachIce Outlook Report is based on a synthesis of 17 individual pan-Arctic estimates using a wide range of methods: statistical, numerical models, comparison with observations and rates of ice loss, composites of several approachice loss, composites of several approaches.

Climate models have successfully predicted the loss of Arctic sea ice, sea level rise and the geographic pattern of global warming.

NOAA's CSV2 model predicted much greater sea ice loss around Antarctica than normal, and much higher sea surface temperatures than normal months before it happened.

He found that prescribed sea ice loss in the model caused a southward shift of the summer jet stream and increased northern European precipitation.

Individual responses continue to be based on a range of methods: statistical, numerical models, comparison with previous rates of sea ice loss, estimates based on various non-sea ice datasets and trends, and subjective information (i.e., the «heuristic» category).

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.

For the decade of 2013 - 2023 (right), the scientists expect to see some winter sea ice loss balanced with sea ice gain on the Atlantic side of the Arctic Ocean, where scientists have the most confidence in the model's ability.

Melt ponds are critical for sea ice albedo and therefore modeling the loss of sea ice with global warming in global climate models.

Viable avenues for improving the information base include determining the primary causes of variation among different climate models and determining which climate models exhibit the best ability to reproduce the observed rate of sea ice loss.

As sea ice declines, it becomes thinner, with less ice build - up over multiple years, and therefore more vulnerable to further melting.15 Models that best match historical trends project northern waters that are virtually ice - free by late summer by the 2030s.25, 26,12 Within the general downward trend in sea ice, there will be time periods with both rapid ice loss and temporary recovery, 27 making it challenging to predict short - term changes in ice conditions.

However, there remains uncertainty in the rate of sea ice loss, with the models that most accurately project historical sea ice trends currently suggesting nearly ice - free conditions sometime between 2021 and 2043 (median 2035).12 Uncertainty across all models stems from a combination of large differences in projections among different climate models, natural climate variability, and uncertainty about future rates of fossil fuel emissions.

The loss of Arctic summer sea ice was happening faster than CO2 driven models had predicted, suggesting flawed models.