Sentences with phrase «warming model then»

Not exact matches

Back then, it said that the planet was warming at a rate of 0.2 C every decade — a figure it claimed was in line with the forecasts made by computer climate models.

Global climate models need to account for what Meehl calls «slowly varying systems» — how warmer air gradually heats the ocean, for example, and what effect this warming ocean then has on the air.

The researchers then plugged these results into a model to determine the extent to which urban warming impacted carbon storage for all of the willow oaks in Raleigh.

The scientists then ran two separate climate models to learn how the rate of global warming might change if the 16 measures were deployed, with and without carbon dioxide controls.

These models can then be mapped against climate forecasts to predict how phenology could shift in the future, painting a picture of landscapes in a world of warmer temperatures, altered precipitation and humidity, and changes in cloud cover.

When you're talking about global warming and melting ice caps, as everyone seems to be, a five - millimeter adjustment in the modeled diameter of the Earth could be the difference between sea levels appearing to rise from any given year to the next and then appearing to drop.

In fact, this is a good example of climate models making a prediction (warmer nights), and then having the prediction born out by the data.

In this astronomy science project, you will model comets of different sizes and then use a hair dryer as a heat source (to mimic the Sun and other «warm» planetary objects) to determine how the size of a comet affects melting.

Simple biogeochemical flux modeling suggests that, if the Archean Earth was kept warm by a methane greenhouse, then the evolution of oxygenic photosynthesis could have triggered a Snowball Earth event on a time scale as short as about a million years (Kopp et al., 2005).

«Of course, if the natural trend was greater than zero — if the natural climate was warming even a little bit — then the models have the atmospheric sensitivity to CO2 even further out of whack than that.»

Another way to estimate climate sensitivity from both models AND observations is to calculate the ratio of observed warming to forecast warming... then multiply that by the ECS value used in the model.

If you feel pallid wearing it — and the model here isn't particularly rosy herself yet still looks Pierette in her yellow, then wear a pink based blusher, or a bit of warming bronzer, or a bit of brown mascara, or a bright red lip and nothing else.

You could argue the data on 30's arctic warming is too sparse both spatially and temporally to be a realistic test of model performance, but then you start to weaken your point about «well characterized» global surface temperature.

I don't think it helps climate modeling when NOAA predicts a warmer then usual winter in the East & Midwest.

If this is the case, then one must answer some fundamental questions, such as why do simple models show much more warming in the last century than was actually observed?

If true climate sensitivity is only 50 - 65 % of the magnitude that is being simulated by climate models, then it is not unreasonable to infer that attribution of late 20th century warming is not 100 % caused by anthropogenic factors, and attribution to anthropogenic forcing is in the middle tercile (50 - 50).

On the other hand, if much of that warming was due to pseudo oscillations not included in the models (AO, NAO, AMO, ENSO, PDO, etc) then their projections may be less valid.

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).

If the warming in that period is caused wholly, or largely, by the forcing represented in those models then their projection are likely to be valid.

If you are modelling the GHE using a single grey body absorber that is not wavelength dependent, then you have warming throughout the whole atmosphere.

If global warming does not pick up, then IPCC climate models come under serious doubt.

I then explain that a climate model, as the computations are made will warm equatorial regions and cool polar regions.

The best simple answer I've seen is basically that you have to go to a 2 - box model of Earth, with warm tropics and cold poles, and then realize that thanks to the thermohaline circulation the deep oceans are coupled almost exclusively to the polar regions, and so are in the «cold» box and not the warm one or some average of them.

Rate of percentage annual growth for carbon dioxide has certainly increased since the beginning of the 21st century, but this should result in a significant change in the rate of warming any more quickly than the differences between emission scenarios would, and there (according to the models) the differences aren't significant for the first thirty - some years but progressively become more pronounced from then on — given the cummulative effects of accumulated carbon dioxide.

I note that if CO2 merely amplifies warming then the reasons for warming remain unquantified and this casts doubt upon climate models.

There's no way out of it: if the greenhouse gas theory were correct and the climate models were really modelling the «real climate» then the high latitudes would be warming the fastest.

What the global change community (through the NRC and CCSP reports) always asserted and then used to discount the radiosonde and UAH satellite trends was that the deep troposphere should not warm less than the surface and in fact based on models globally the troposphere should warm 1.2 more (the amplification factor).

The model showed that there should be a seasonal cycle in the behavior of the shallow - water hydrates just below the seafloor, with some additional hydrates forming while the water temperature is cooler and then melting when the water is warmer.

If our analysis is correct, then this indicates that climate models underestimate the weakening of the Atlantic circulation in response to global warming — probably because the flow in these models is too stable (see Hofmann and Rahmstorf 2009).

If the models don't reflect such differences in radiation balance between the hemispheres, then there is something wrong with the models... But globally, the oceans are warming (much) faster in the NH than in the SH...

IF the energy required by the GCMs to create the rise in GHG induced temperature comes from the outflow to space (per Hank's model in 137, which I thought was pretty reasonable), BUT IF the GCMs are required to have inflow = outflow @TOA (ie equilibrium — per # 142 & the formal publications» descriptions of the GCMs from GISS etc,) THEN WHERE IN (rhetorical) HELL does the energy come from to create GHG Global warming?

He went to great effort to say he honored the scientists work, but then flatly said that though the Arctic is in meltdown and its worse than models predict, that we can not make a causal link to human global warming pollution can not he said things like «I wish this decision could have been otherwise» and talked about colleagues saying they were glad they weren't in his shoes.

If we ARE warming (and we are), then the integrity of the model becomes more important (back to the public policy bit above).

Once we have used real observations to understand the probability in the historical record, then we can use climate models to compare the probability in the current climate (in which global warming has occurred) with a climate in which there was no human - caused global warming.

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.

If past periods were warmer, such as MWP, then one must be able to properly model the MWP to way WHY it was warm and go from there, but no one has been able to do that yet.

But Zycher points to excursions from 1910 - 1940 and 1940 - 1970 (a warming then a cooling that climate models do not collectively capture) as evidence of their inability to estimate response to forcing over longer periods.

Note that he used the past in his sentence «satellite data showed no warming» and then he goes on «The report showed that selective corrections to the atmospheric data could lead to some warming, thus reducing the conflict between observations and models descriptions of what greenhouse warming should look like.»

In the end, one need not know with a high degree of accuracy the intricacies of the climate's variability to show an increased warming trend: 3 Furthermore, there are no models that exist that are able to match recent observed warming without taking rising CO2 levels into account, i.e. if radiative forcings from CO2 aren't taken into account, then models don't match hindcasting.

Since (by then) not all models showed more warming aloft than on the surface (which I wouldn't call a strong sign of reliability in the models) the gap between models and observations closed just enough to make both statistically compatible.

when you can design a model that can even predict a temperature profile of: a 4 degrees of freedom, rotating sphere, that is warmed by the output of a non-linear external heat source, and that is covered in a thermodynamic fluid that is constantly in motion with non-linear chaotic Beyesian characteristics — and then throw in variability due to non-linearity behavior of an element that can cause both positive and negative feed - backs due to the existence of it's three phases; liquid, vapor and solid....

In response to David Bell's comment, I agree that if the heat island effect is 40 % then global warming models need major reconsideration.

Then (2004) he saw that his model predictions on warming were not happening (they were exaggerated by 2:1), so he used «circular logic» to come up with the «hidden in the pipeline» postulation.

Kevin Hamilton, who co-authored the report, warns: «If our model results prove to be representative of the real global climate, then climate is actually more sensitive to perturbations by greenhouse gases than current global models predict, and even the highest warming predictions would underestimate the real change we could see.»

Then when climategate triggered me to closely examine everything, notably the IPCC's attribution argument, I realized that the fingerprints were «muddy», the climate models are running too hot, the forcing data is uncertain, no account is made for multidecadal and longer internal variability, and they have no explanation for the warming 1910 - 1940, the cooling 1940 - 1976, and the hiatus since 1998.

Just as a hypothetical example: If climate scientist will tell me that recent pause in global warming is due to the effect of an inactive sun (which is the reality as reported by following) http://www.spaceweather.com and that they will go back and improve their models to account for this, then I would be more inclined to believe their other claims... Instead the IPCC doubles down on their predictions and claim the future effects will be worst than they originally thought?

If we are so fortunate to have warmed the planet temporarily, then the subsequent glaciation may be delayed, acccording to some MODEL PREDICTIONS.

Then, in 2009, the exposure of emails between the «scientists» responsible for the data the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was putting out to scare the pants off of everyone about «global warming» — since dubbed Climategate — revealed they were not only rigging the computer models, but were increasingly worried that the planet had entered a new, perfectly natural, cooling cycle.

Climate Models smooth the data for the past ten thousand years and then put modern warming on the end of the stick.

So, they didn't actually simulate sea level changes, but instead estimated how much sea level rise they would expect from man - made global warming, and then used computer model predictions of temperature changes, to predict that sea levels will have risen by 0.8 - 2 metres by 2100.