Sentences with phrase «same modeled temperature»

We can say that the GCM results (using the same input forcings and the same modeled temperature outputs) can be matched with a zero - dimensional model with low effective climate sensitivity.

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 °.

In his new paper, Lovejoy applies the same approach to the 15 - year period after 1998, during which globally averaged temperatures remained high by historical standards, but were somewhat below most predictions generated by the complex computer models used by scientists to estimate the effects of greenhouse - gas emissions.

A 2000 - year transient climate simulation with the Community Climate System Model shows the same temperature sensitivity to changes in insolation as does our proxy reconstruction, supporting the inference that this long - term trend was caused by the steady orbitally driven reduction in summer insolation.

Future projections for the same cities are drawn from climate models that estimate temperature and humidity assuming global greenhouse gas emissions continue unabated.

Bringing together observed and simulated measurements on ocean temperatures, atmospheric pressure, water soil and wildfire occurrences, the researchers have a powerful tool in their hands, which they are willing to test in other regions of the world: «Using the same climate model configuration, we will also study the soil water and fire risk predictability in other parts of our world, such as the Mediterranean, Australia or parts of Asia,» concludes Timmermann.

Given the inverse relationship observed between their values, it has been possible to determine the additional area of vegetation needed (in this case of green roofs) necessary to reduce the temperature by the same amount as it is predicted to rise in different climate change models for Seville.

By using simulations that were created by running the same model multiple times, with only tiny differences in the initial starting conditions, the scientists could examine the range of summertime temperatures we might expect in the future for the «business - as - usual» and reduced - emissions scenarios.

They calculated the temperature of each model earth in the same way as in the real world.

This model can account well for the observed magnitudes of the high transition temperatures in these materials and implies a gap that does not change sign, can be substantially anisotropic, and has the same symmetry as the crystal.

I used was the surface temperature responses from histAll --(histGHG + histNatural) to obtain the response to aerosols + ozone + land - use and derive the enhancement of the response for that case relative to WMGHGs that I called E. Calculation of TCR based on histAll in a model is approximately the same as calculating the sum of responses to histGHG, histNat, and histInhomogeneous where the latter includes the factor E.

I am very curious if the same models with the same paramaters also reproduce the Eemian - 110,000 years before present period where there is an almost total separation of temperature and CO2 trends...

If you take into account that virtually all the world's concrete and asphalt which causes the positive feedback of UHI (urban heat island) was made after 1940 you could tweak up the model inputs for solar and down for CO2 and get just the same result for surface temperature.

In contrast to this observational approach, Schmittner (as well as a number of other papers, like reference # 4 in this post) take advantage of both models and observations, and try to use the observations to constrain which feedback parameters in the model are consistent (e.g., an overly sensitive model with the same forcings as another model will produce too big of a temperature change than observations allow).

The scientists behind today's analysis used the same 13 climate models to investigate how often we might see a repeat of such high Arctic winter temperatures in future as warming continues.

At the same time, increasing depth and duration of drought, along with warmer temperatures enabling the spread of pine beetles has increased the flammability of this forest region — http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v1/n9/full/nclimate1293.html http://www.vancouversun.com/fires+through+tinder+pine+beetle+killed+forests/10047293/story.html Can climate models give different TCR and ECS with different timing / extent of when or how much boreal forest burns, and how the soot generated alters the date of an ice free Arctic Ocean or the rate of Greenland ice melt and its influence on long term dynamics of the AMOC transport of heat?

In the same paper in which he made his often - quoted «prediction» that doubling the atmospheric concentration of CO 2 would lead to an increase of 10 °C in surface mean temperature, F. Möller makes an almost never quoted disclaimer to the effect that a 1 percent increase in general cloudiness in the same model would completely mask this effect.

While the observed Antarctic temperatures rose by about 0.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.2 degrees Celsius) over the past century, the climate models simulated increases in Antarctic temperatures during the same period of 1.4 degrees F (0.75 degrees C).

As a check of this, one could comparing the climate model simulations of temperature change using the historical forcing runs with the temperature change produced by the same models under CO2 - only forcing runs * at times of equivalent total forcing change *.

Also, from the same source: http://climateprediction.net/science/secondresults.php «Most models still maintain a temperature of between 13 and 14 Â °C, however some get colder — these are not stable and the heat flux calculated in phase 1 was not correct to keep the model in balance.»

Also, from the same source: http://climateprediction.net/science/secondresults.php «Most models still maintain a temperature of between 13 and 14 °C, however some get colder — these are not stable and the heat flux calculated in phase 1 was not correct to keep the model in balance.»

The team combined this data with meteorological models of the temperatures, winds, and movement of air masses from the same time period, and then used a statistical method known as geostatistical inverse modeling to essentially run the model backward and determine the methane's origin.

I was referring to the plot of absolute average surface temperatures from different models against the projected rate of warming for 2011 to 2070 from those same models; this is the next to last graphic from Gavin's post.

Question: If we do model future temperatures based on CO2 emission scenarios, then how can we target a future temperature without targeting CO2 emissions at the same time?

This is the same thing that became evident when RealClimate used that broad range of outputs to explain why there are «no» clear model - data inconsistencies regarding the tropical troposphere temperature observations.

In Fig. 8, I have digitized the outer bounds of the model runs in Fig. 7, and also plotted the HadCRUT3 global annual mean temperature anomaly over the same period.

Also, I'd think modeling storm size would be easier than storm intensity for the same reasons predicting average global temperature is easier to predict than next week's weather.

So climate modelling may not be perfect in the timing, but the end result would still be the same level of temperatures around 2100, so therefore we don't have any room to think emissions can continue at present levels, and the amount of carbon left to burn would not be as high as 800 gigatons.

• If you're a skeptic, and you welcome these results, please remember that these are the same climate models you bash when they show global temperatures steadily rising during the next century.

I have the same problem with the global temperature simulations, the most recent measured data (12 years) is not trending as the models predicted.

Certainly any increase in air temperature from radiative forcings (apparently reasonably well modeled in the GCMs) is going to increase the temperature differential from ground to space, which will increase the vertical air velocity (ie increased hurricane strength) and DECREASE the residence time of energy in the air in the same manner that GHGs increase the residence time.

Related to your arguments is an error in the models where the surface air temperature is the same as the surface temperature.

The main problem I have with Michaels is while he reasonably points out the limitations of climate models for forecasting the next one hundred years, he then confidently makes his own forecast of warming continuing at the same rate as for the last thirty years, leading to a 2 degree increase in global temperature.

And indeed Dr Forest has recently confirmed that the surface model and control - run temperature data used in Forest 2006 was the same as that used in CSF 2005.

The null model is «all temperatures are the same everywhere every day».

This means the global mean temperature (GMST) response to the aggregate forcing applying during the historical period (actually, 1906 — 2005) was identical, in the model, to the response to the same forcing from CO2 only.

I like to keep things simple, so you take the three points of the triangle in the model as representing a flat triangle, move the triangle corners to match the three measured temperatures, then place each point within the triangle at the same distance above or below the triangle as it is in the model.

Canadian Ice Service, 4.7 (+ / - 0.2), Heuristic / Statistical (same as June) The 2015 forecast was derived by considering a combination of methods: 1) a qualitative heuristic method based on observed end - of - winter Arctic ice thickness extents, as well as winter Surface Air Temperature, Sea Level Pressure and vector wind anomaly patterns and trends; 2) a simple statistical method, Optimal Filtering Based Model (OFBM), that uses an optimal linear data filter to extrapolate the September sea ice extent timeseries into the future and 3) a Multiple Linear Regression (MLR) prediction system that tests ocean, atmosphere and sea ice predictors.

Then again, Bjorn Stevens was in the crew advocating «adjustments» since surface temperature Ts plus sst isn't the same as tas produced by the models plus «surface» temperature has some Zeroth law issues.

Whatever you think about climate model non-linearity, those same models linearly project air temperature.

Back in 2008 Santer with much the same group of co-authors (Thorne, Wigley, Solomon...) published a paper «Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere» where they said that models and observations were consistent (in response to a paper of Douglas et al).

All the models had access to the same sea surface temperature data, so Trenberth's temperature anomalies were never a critical factor that could explain model differences.

SAW is a model, which you flatly contradict, pretending that it's the same thing as detrended temperature, which it isn't.

Specifically, the cloud cover is multiplied by the factor 1 + c T, where T, computed every time step, is the deviation of the global mean surface air temperature from the long - term mean in the model control run at the same point in the seasonal cycle and c is an empirical constant.

Yes, Dyson doesn't put as much faith in mathmatical models as some (despite the fact that actual temperature measurements fall within the confidence bands of those same models), but let's DO pay attention to what Dyson actually says, but with just a bit more detail:

The same input data was given to the both models and the compared variable was road surface temperature.

Christy is correct to note that the model average warming trend (0.23 °C / decade for 1978 - 2011) is a bit higher than observations (0.17 °C / decade over the same timeframe), but that is because over the past decade virtually every natural influence on global temperatures has acted in the cooling direction (i.e. an extended solar minimum, rising aerosols emissions, and increased heat storage in the deep oceans).

Used in opposition to «global average temperatures» from those same models, as discussed in the previous paragraph.

Models predict that the same summertime temperatures that ranked among the top 5 % in 1950 — 1979 will occur at least 70 % of the time by 2035 — 2064 in the U.S. if global emissions of greenhouse gases grow at a moderate rate (as modeled under the IPCC SRES A2 scenario).

(That's exactly the same as the difference between measured temperature and the models» calculated man - made contribution to temperature).