Sentences with phrase «radiative model explained»

Not exact matches

As we explain in our glossary item, climatologists use the concept of radiative forcing and climate sensitivity because it provides a very robust predictive tool for knowing what model results will be, given a change of forcing.

Numerous climate modeling experiments which have included the role of natural (both solar and volcanic) radiative forcing have concluded that natural forcing can not explain 20th century warming.

Guemas et al. (Nature Climate Change 2013) shows that the slower warming of the last ten years can not be explained by a change in the radiative balance of our Earth, but rather by a change in the heat storage of the oceans, and that this can be at least partially reproduced by climate models, if one accounts for the natural fluctuations associated with El Niño in the initialization of the models.

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).

As we explain in our glossary item, climatologists use the concept of radiative forcing and climate sensitivity because it provides a very robust predictive tool for knowing what model results will be, given a change of forcing.

The CLAs advised against including this statement in the SPM, noting that: the research is currently inconclusive; overestimation of the models is too small to explain the overall effect and not statistically significant; and it is difficult to pinpoint the role of changes in radiative forcing in causing the reduced warming trend, with Co-Chair Stocker referring to this issue as an «emerging science topic.»

But almost universally, when they try to explain it, they all use the purely radiative approach, which is incorrect, misleading, contrary to observation, and results in a variety of inconsistencies when people try to plug real atmospheric physics into a bad model

Radiative transfer models can explain the current radiative fluxes, so we can be confident in their results if you take today's atmosphere and double CRadiative transfer models can explain the current radiative fluxes, so we can be confident in their results if you take today's atmosphere and double Cradiative fluxes, so we can be confident in their results if you take today's atmosphere and double CO2 in it.

The radiative transfer equations as part of the modeled results have done a pretty good job of explaining the observed results but aren't exactly the same.

Without the cutesy back radiation into a warmer surface invention, it might be easier to explain the potential radiative impact of CO2 and with a better model of the atmospheric layers, understand why it is not living up to its potential.

The more conventional pure reductionist radiative model approach (Sloan and Wolfendale 2013; Manabe and Möller 1961) is unable to explain a lack of warming in the presence of increased GHGs unless additional factors are included such as natural variations (Easterling and Wehner 2009).

As I understand projections are of course made on the basis of what is known today, which comprises that greenhouse gases force the climate system due to a well understood mechanism of radiative heat transfer, generating models that well explain what is observed and measured today.

88, Marco: As I understand projections are of course made on the basis of what is known today, which comprises that greenhouse gases force the climate system due to a well understood mechanism of radiative heat transfer, generating models that well explain what is observed and measured today.