Sentences with phrase «volcanic forcing drives»

Our analyses suggest, rather, that volcanic forcing drives the coupled ocean - atmosphere system more subtly towards a state in which multi-year El Nin˜o - like conditions are favoured, followed by a weaker rebound into a La Nin˜a - like state.

Our analyses suggest, rather, that volcanic forcing drives the coupled ocean - atmosphere system more subtly towards a state in which multi-year El Niño - like conditions are favoured, followed by a weaker rebound into a La Niña - like state.»

Not exact matches

The driving force behind Yellowstone's long and explosive volcanic history may not be as deep as once thought.

The model results (which are based on driving various climate models with estimated solar, volcanic, and anthropogenic radiative forcing changes over this timeframe) are, by in large, remarkably consistent with the reconstructions, taking into account the statistical uncertainties.

you'll see the multi-model mean based on models driven by volcanic forcing is rejected at the 90 % confidence level for every year between 1960 and 1998.

Maybe a dumb question BUT since the «hockey stick» shows up in the sunspot curves in 20 above, in the Solanski 2002 Jeffreys lecture solar irradiance curves, in Be-10 curves etc etc, indicating a driving solar forcing for the hockey stick, then why doesn't it show up in the GCM models for natural only (see Is modelling science http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=100) Surely the volcanic forcings from one 1991 volcano can't dominate the sun?

We compared simulated temperature of the past millennium derived by driving theoretical climate models with estimated natural (volcanic + solar) and anthropogenic forcings for the past millennium.

The NCAR CSM 1.4 was driven by the radiative forcings (volcanic + solar natural and anthropogenic ghg + aerosol) developed in Ammann et al (2007).

Recently I have been looking at the climate models collected in the CMIP3 archive which have been analysed and assessed in IPCC and it is very interesting to see how the forced changes — i.e. the changes driven the external factors such as greenhouse gases, tropospheric aerosols, solar forcing and stratospheric volcanic aerosols drive the forced response in the models (which you can see by averaging out several simulations of the same model with the same forcing)-- differ from the internal variability, such as associated with variations of the North Atlantic and the ENSO etc, which you can see by looking at individual realisations of a particular model and how it differs from the ensemble mean.

Volcanic events and some types of human - made pollution, both of which inject sunlight - reflecting aerosols (i.e., tiny particles) into the atmosphere, lower temperature and are examples of forcings that drive decreases in temperature.

Stratospheric ozone in models is erroneously being driven CFC emissions rather than ozone destroying sulphuric acid aerosols for stratospheric volcanic eruptions, and thus also providing a spurious anthropogenic post-2000 forcing.

These forcing factors constitute additional elements that could drive variability in the future, particularly volcanic aerosols following large eruptions [59,60].

We can see the temperature forcing of El Nino episodes driven by the surface cooling from large stratospheric volcanic events, and some research suggests that near permanent El Nino conditions existed during full glaciation ~ 20kyrs ago.

Observed temperature (black line), the out - of - sample forecast for global surface temperature driven by anthropogenic changes in radiative forcing (red line) and the out - of - sample forecast for global surface temperature driven by natural variables (solar insolation, SOI, and volcanic sulfates)(green line).