Sentences with phrase «modelled atmospheric response»

Regional trends are notoriously problematic for models, and seems more likely to me that the underprediction of European warming has to do with either the modeled ocean temperature pattern, the modelled atmospheric response to this pattern, or some problem related to the local hydrological cycle and boundary layer moisture dynamics.

Other successful projections include modeling the atmospheric response to the Pinatubo eruption.

Not exact matches

More complicated feedback - response models that use a lumped feedback parameter suggest that the same doubling could cause average atmospheric temperatures to rise by less than 2 F °.

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

Development of an atmospheric model that «has emergency response applications, including tracking mercury deposition and anthrax bioterrorism,» would also end, it noted.

Consequently the global climate in these models becomes less sensitive in its response to atmospheric carbon dioxide.

For the study, Gentine and Lemordant took Earth system models with decoupled surface (vegetation physiology) and atmospheric (radiative) CO2 responses and used a multi-model statistical analysis from CMIP5, the most current set of coordinated climate model experiments set up as an international cooperation project for the International Panel on Climate Change.

Your statement that «Thus it is natural to look at the real world and see whether there is evidence that it behaves in the same way (and it appears to, since model hindcasts of past changes match observations very well)» seems to indicate that you think there will be no changes in ocean circulation or land use trends, nor any subsequent changes in cloud responses thereto or other atmospheric circulation.

Seasonal atmospheric responses to reduced Arctic sea ice in an ensemble of coupled model simulations.

We also note that the modeled response of atmospheric pressure to the cooling effect of ice melt is large scale, tending to be of a meridional nature that should be handled by our model resolution.

Hu, A.X., G.A. Meehl, W.M. Washington, and A. Dai, 2004: Response of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation to increased atmospheric CO2 in a coupled model.

Wood, R.A., A.B. Keen, J.F.B. Mitchell, and J.M. Gregory, 1999: Changing spatial structure of the thermohaline circulation in response to atmospheric CO2 forcing in a climate model.

Gregory, J.M., et al., 2005: A model intercomparison of changes in the Atlantic thermohaline circulation in response to increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration.

«We find this fingerprint both in a high - resolution climate model in response to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, and in the temperature trends observed since the late nineteenth century.»

[Response: I agree that there are serious problems with the representation of atmospheric feedbacks in the model, but the lack of a fourth - power dependence in infrared emission vs T is not the key one them.

Presumably the water vapour feedback in models is dealt with by determining / estimating / calculating the radiative forcing from water vapour and then making some assumption about the water vapour response to atmospheric warming (e.g. assuming constant relative humidity).

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.

Response: It's not the IPCC models that don't include this, rather it is the scenarios that are used to estimate future atmospheric composition.

That's clear from recent peer - reviewed reports such as Marvel et al 2016: Implications for climate sensitivity from the response to individual forcings, and Sherwood et al. 2014: Spread in model climate sensitivity traced to atmospheric convective mixing.

The response to the model to varied snow cover did not resemble the PNA pattern but instead was much closer an atmospheric pattern associated with the NAO (North Atlantic Oscillation) or AO / NAM (Arctic Oscillation or Northern Annular Mode).

[Response: At the dawn of coupled modelling, errors that arose in separate developments of ocean and atmospheric models lead to significant inconsistencies between the fluxes that each component needed from the other, and the ones they were getting.

In models at least, this kind of response would be most directly related to increases in stratification due to surface warming, as I understand it, and not directly to the kind of change in atmospheric circulation discussed in Dian's paper.

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.

Your statement that «Thus it is natural to look at the real world and see whether there is evidence that it behaves in the same way (and it appears to, since model hindcasts of past changes match observations very well)» seems to indicate that you think there will be no changes in ocean circulation or land use trends, nor any subsequent changes in cloud responses thereto or other atmospheric circulation.

This is most likely because his radiative model does not have any atmospheric mixing, and therefore the response to near - ground fluxes is hugely overestimated.

All climate models tell us that it is the Arctic sea ice cover that declines first, and that Antarctic ice extent falls only later, and may even (as observed) temporarily increase in response to changing patterns of atmospheric circulation.

[Response: As stated in my article, precipitation changes used in the projections are taken from a high - resolution atmospheric model.

Knauer, J., C. Werner, and S. Zaehle (2015), Evaluating stomatal models and their atmospheric drought response in a land surface scheme: A multibiome analysis, J. Geophys.

In their model, the researchers were able to tease out the impacts of one factor at a time, which allowed them to investigate and quantify the monsoon response to the doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide, increased temperatures and other individual changes.

As shown in Figure 2, the IPCC FAR ran simulations using models with climate sensitivities (the total amount of global surface warming in response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2, including amplifying and dampening feedbacks) correspoding to 1.5 °C (low), 2.5 °C (best), and 4.5 °C (high).

For myself, I call into question not the «basic radiative transfer physics» but the completeness and accuracy of the atmospheric models: all of the equations are approximations, the response of clouds to CO2 increase and warming are not well known, yet AGW proponents act as though a slight increase in temp following a long increase in CO2 is a sure thing.

«We find this fingerprint both in a high - resolution climate model in response to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, and in the temperature trends observed since the late nineteenth century.»

Tom — You raise valid points about the challenge of model development for predicting long term trends such as temperature responses to a continued rise in atmospheric CO2.

Magnusdottir, G., R. Saravanan and C. Deser, 2003: The modelled response of the atmospheric winter circulation to North Atlantic SST and sea - ice anomalies corresponding to multidecadal trends.

Rather than questioning the primary role of the atmospheric CO2, our modelling results allow us to put forward that the atmospheric CO2 is not the whole story and that, owing to the overwhelming effect and interplay between the paleogeography, the water cycle and the seasonal response, the climate system may undergo subtle climatic changes (as the 4 °C global warming simulated here between the Aptian and the Maastrichtian runs).

For example, scenarios that rely on the results from GCM experiments alone may be able to represent some of the uncertainties that relate to the modelling of the climate response to a given radiative forcing, but might not embrace uncertainties caused by the modelling of atmospheric composition for a given emissions scenario, or those related to future land - use change.

A shift in atmospheric circulation in response to changes in solar activity is broadly consistent with atmospheric circulation patterns in long - term climate model simulations, and in reanalysis data that assimilate observations from recent solar minima into a climate model.

The Earth's response to changes in atmospheric CO2 is studied using what are known as global climate models (GCMs), which run on supercomputers.

Here seven GVMs are used to investigate possible responses of global natural terrestrial vegetation to a major new set of future climate and atmospheric CO2 projections generated as part of the fifth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5)(6), the primary climate modeling contribution to the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment.

To conduct their study, the researchers used a spatial model of marsh morphodynamics into which they incorporated recently published observations from field experiments on marsh vegetation response to varying levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

A more definitive reconciliation of modeled and observed temperature changes awaits the extension and improvement of the observations and the algorithms used in processing them, better specification of the natural and human - induced climate forcings during this period, and improvement of the models used to simulate the atmospheric response to these forcings.break

The response of atmospheric CO2 and climate to the reconstructed variability in solar irradiance and radiative forcing by volcanoes over the last millennium is examined by applying a coupled physical — biogeochemical climate model that includes the Lund - Potsdam - Jena dynamic global vegetation model (LPJ - DGVM) and a simplified analogue of a coupled atmosphere — ocean general circulation model.

In the models that generated the maps featured above, the atmosphere is allowed to respond freely to pre-set changes in the ocean or land surface that the scientists specify in the course of the simulation, but the ocean can't adapt to atmospheric changes in response.

However NOAA's models fail to account for the biological pump, based on the narrow belief that carbon storage is strictly «a chemical and physical response to rising atmospheric CO2» (Sabine 2010).

Local and large - scale atmospheric responses to reduced Arctic sea ice and ocean warming in the WRF model

Seawater data collected by a Hydrolab DataSonde (Hach Company, Loveland, CO) since 2000 show that the ocean at this site has undergone a sustained decline in pH over the past decade [2] at a rate that is an order of magnitude greater than expected based on model predictions [13] and the equilibrium response to rising atmospheric CO2 concentration.

In a new paper by Saba et al., they compare simulations and an atmospheric CO2 doubling response from four NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) global climate models of varying ocean and atmosphere resolution.

One recent study, for example, presented a thorough and careful scrutiny of hundreds of peer - reviewed scientific publications evaluating the accuracy and capability of climate models to simulate the response of a number of important climatic phenomena to rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

The sources of uncertainty are many, including the trajectory of greenhouse gas emissions in the future, their conversion into atmospheric concentrations, the range of responses of various climate models to a given radiative forcing and the method of constructing high resolution information from global climate model outputs (Pittock, 1995; see Figure 13.2).

The IPCC FAR ran simulations using models with climate sensitivities (the total amount of global surface warming in response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2, including amplifying and dampening feedbacks) of 1.5 °C (low), 2.5 °C (best), and 4.5 °C (high) for doubled CO2 (Figure 1).