Sentences with phrase «recent model output»

Here's a link which shows recent model output.

Not exact matches

While the study conducts a sensitivity analysis that includes one scenario with higher levels of production subsidies, the fact that the model's outputs seem to barely register a tripling of production subsidies raises some questions, especially in light of the findings of the other recent U.S. study led by the Stockholm Environment Institute and EarthTrack described above.

For the earlier generation of models, results are based on the archived output from control runs (specifically, the first 30 years, in the case of temperature, and the first 20 years for the other fields), and for the recent generation models, results are based on the 20th - century simulations with climatological periods selected to correspond with observations.

The current delivery model that has been in place essentially unaltered for over eighty years is flawed because, in spite of all the good work done on standards and accountability in recent years, the system remains primarily «input» and compliance driven rather than «output» and performance driven.

We have many studies presenting the projections from GCMs under various forcing scenarios where unforced variability is simulated, and we have a few studies (not many I think) which have a model reproduce the * actual * forcings and unforced variability and see how well the output matches observations (a recent one by Yu Kosaka and Shang - Ping Xie being a case in point).

These experiments indicate that models can not reproduce the rapid warming observed in recent decades when they only take into account variations in solar output and volcanic activity.

If I am reading the output of the ensemble models correctly, none of them suggest the possibility of the recent low ice events.

[4] This can be done most straightforwardly by only considering the 14 modelling groups that contributed output from both their earlier and more recent models.

A recent meta - analysis published in the journal Nature Climate Change, by Challinor et al. (2014) examines 1,722 crop model simulations, run using global climate model output under several emissions scenarios, to evaluate the potential effects of climate change and adaptation on crop yield.

You may have missed his recent posting about this topic: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/21/model-climate-sensitivity-calculated-directly-from-model-results/#more-86761 It is actually amazing that the global temperature result of climate models can be replicated with forcing inputs manipulated by his trivial formula, resulting in an almost identical output (r value of about 0.99).

At the same time, the report indicates that recent observations of the climate — as distinct from the output of complex climate models — are consistent with «the lower part of the likely range.»

These data have been produced using the leading climate research models, whose outputs have informed important scientific assessments of climate change and its impacts, such as the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment reports and the National Climate Assessment.

In part one, I wrote «In the simplest of terms, every study that has attributed the recent warming of the 1980s and 90s to rising CO2 has been based on the difference between their models» reconstruction of «natural climate change» with their models» output of «natural climate change plus CO2.»

This obviously has implications for some papers on recent temperature trends, although the better papers which compare coverage - masked model outputs against HadCRUT4 are largely unaffected.

The advanced climate model output clearly misses all the big extremes and wide variations of observed global temperatures, including this El Niño's recent incredible burst of warming

As I said on another blog, what would be an interesting comparison would be a comparison of data to output from (e.g.) unmodified AR4 codes run further forward to 2013 (or as recent as is practicable) using the actual forcings, starting with the exact run states of the models at the end of the verification period for AR4 (that is the end - point where «known» forcings were used, rather than scenarios).

Their aim at this stage was to reconcile model output with the recent climate record.

In any case, it is simply an effort to reconcile the rapid rates of warming in the Arctic with the output of the most recent group of global climate models — everyone agrees that global warming is real, except for a very large number of editors and reporters with the U.S. press, who continue to advocate for the positions held by a small number of fossil fuel funded contrarians and insist on giving them «equal time» — a luxury denied to renewable energy experts.

If you could somehow separate out the micro-climate effects from scatter (e.g. T - storms) using recent data, could you apply that to the regional - scale model outputs?