Sentences with phrase «which forcing scenario»

So which forcing scenario came closest to the real world?

So which forcing scenario came closest to the real world?

Not exact matches

In Brazil's machismo culture, pregnant women are particularly vulnerable, and Barroso described scenarios in which women who purchased misoprostol were then harassed at the pharmacy, or forced to allow the pharmacist to vaginally insert the drug.

«In that scenario, we could be forced to raise interest rates rapidly, which in turn could push the economy into a new recession.»

In other scenarios you're correct that there is so much public money taking one team that books are forced to move their number, which gives added value to the other side.

Moreover, even under a very stressed scenario — in which Spain is forced to finance the $ 200 - 220 billion it needs from today until early 2014 at yields of 8 - 9 per cent — the effect on the average interest rate of the total outstanding debt would be limited, rising from the current 4.1 per cent to about 5 per cent.

«Russia has sent forces into Crimea... they are working on scenarios which are fully analogous with Abkhazia, when having initiated a military conflict, they started to annex the territory,» Turchinov said in televised comments.

The Buffalo police's main shortcoming was its lack of scenario - based training, in which officers are placed in high - stress situations and have to make decisions about when and whether to use force.

If he's forced to split conservative votes with a minor party candidate, a scenario in which Democrat Steve Meyer is competitive is feasible.

Mercer had been forced to step down following allegations of asking questions in the Commons in return for cash, the kind of «aren't politicians dreadful» scenario on which UKIP has thrived in recent years.

A study released last month in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres used three different models to run the same SSCE scenario in which sea - salt engineering was used in the low - latitude oceans to keep top - of - atmosphere radiative forcing at the 2020 level for 50 years and was then abruptly turned off for 20 years.

This so - called compactification generates a number of «modulus» forces, some of which would be comparable to gravity at distances approaching a tenth of a millimeter under certain string theory scenarios.

(If only we could clone ourselves...) With the viral video «Instagram Husband» I was forced a slight chuckle imagining so many similar scenarios in which I and my photographer had similarly sacrificed normal life for the sake of just the right shot.

With the viral video «Instagram Husband» I was forced a slight chuckle imagining so many similar scenarios in which I and my photographer had similarly sacrificed normal life for the sake of just the right shot.

Yep, if you \'re forced to itemize in order to lower your AMT hit, you \'re almost always going to wind up paying more in taxes than if the AMT didn \» t affect you at all (only exception would be is if your taxable income under regular tax is $ 0 when itemizing, which I guess is possible in one of these AMT scenarios, but I guess you \'d need a whole lot of exemptions).

Picture this scenario: you've been laid off from your job, forcing you to fall behind on your bill payments, which subsequently lead to your credit score taking a ghastly hit.

In this scenario there is only one force setting the price, which is simple supply and demand for the asset in the future, as expressed by supply and demand for the futures contract.

Each battle is constructed from a scenario (such as planetary assault, which requires you to rush your ships to certain locations against tight time limits while the enemy tries to waylay you, or assassination, where the enemy tries to kill your flagship and you have to hold out until you can warp out from the battle), and both sides get to construct their forces up to a set point value.

From basic rabble to archers, knights and even dragons (these can actually be controlled by the player and can be used to dispatch tactically placed volleys of flaming death upon your foes), your army can become quite large and multi-faceted, which is just as well really because at the end of a number of days the apocalypse kicks off and you have to lay the final smackdown on the forces of evil and unpleasantness in order to win the scenario.

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).

For global warming scenarios, additional forcing comes into play: surface warming and enhanced high - latitude precipitation, which will also reduce density of northern surface waters (an effect which alone has shut down deep water formation in some model experiments, e.g. Manabe and Stouffer 1993, 1994).

I could describe a climate scenario in which we would be really forced to make Soylent Green out of people, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to divert skill and gold now into developing recipes.

Their abstract says «energy budget calculations show that poleward atmospheric energy transport increases more in solar forcing compared to equivalent CO2 forcing simulations, which is in line with the identified strong increase in large - scale precipitation in solar forcing scenarios.»

One could use the responses of all three scenarios relative to their specific forcings to make an estimate of what the model would have given using the exact observed forcings, but just using scenario C — which has diverged significantly from the actual forcings — is not going to be useful.

The test of the model is whether, given the observed changes in forcing, it produces a skillful prediction using the scenario most closely related to the observations — which is B (once you acknowledge the slight overestimate in the forcings).

There are a range of possible scenarios, which depend more on what we do with respect to forcings than to the actual physics.

Scenario C has the same forcing until 2000 as Scenario B, after which it is constant at 2000 levels.

First off, there is no way that Scenario A was more realistic — the proof is in figure 1 above which gives the real forcings used.

If you want uncertainty due to the forcings, then take the span of Scenario A to C, if you want the uncertainty due to the climate model, you need to compare different climate models which is a little beyond this post — but look at IPCC AR4 to get an idea.

Actual and projected emission levels are already at the high end of Hansen's «alternative scenario» which was suggested as an achievable outcome (based on significant control efforts) that kept forcings (including Co2, CH4 and black carbon) below a level that Hansen considered would be «dangerous» (specifically a level that would avoid the melting of any significant fraction of the WAIS or Greenland ice sheet).

One of the readers (LadyGray in comment 48 of the CA post) links to a 2004 Hansen paper where he reports forcings for other trace gases, which include HFCs (and which I don't think were included in Scenario B in 1988).

They maintain that the actual forcings (which includes things other than just CO2) are closest to Hansen's scenario B. Remember this wasn't an exercise in predicting future CO2, methane, solar, volcanic, etc. forcings, but a prediction of what could happen under some hypothetical «high», «medium» and «low» forcing scenarios.

I doubt you'll be able to show it was any more than the current level) then current forcings should be higher than RC's straight line (which is skewed downwards by the ~ 2015 volcanic eruption) for Scenario B implies.

Unlike the scenarios developed by the IPCC and reported in Nakicenovic et al. (2000), which examined possible global futures and associated greenhouse - related emissions in the absence of measures designed to limit anthropogenic climate change, RCP4.5 is a stabilization scenario and assumes that climate policies, in this instance the introduction of a set of global greenhouse gas emissions prices, are invoked to achieve the goal of limiting emissions and radiative forcing.

A comparison with Hansen 1988 requires looking at the forcings as described in the 1988 paper, not those presented in the 1998 paper which updates the scenarios based on experience.

Costly and economically inefficient command - and - control greenhouse gas regulations are firmly entrenched in law, and there is no plausible scenario in which they can be removed by conservative political force.

The 1951 - 1980 means of the three scenarios, which included forcings for the period, were thus higher than the 1951 - 80 zero for the target temperature series by 0.1 deg C for Scenario A and 0.07 deg C for Scenariosscenarios, which included forcings for the period, were thus higher than the 1951 - 80 zero for the target temperature series by 0.1 deg C for Scenario A and 0.07 deg C for ScenariosScenarios B and C.

Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 4.5 is a scenario of long - term, global emissions of greenhouse gases, short - lived species, and land - use - land - cover which stabilizes radiative forcing at 4.5 W m − 2 (approximately 650 ppm CO2 - equivalent) in the year 2100 without ever exceeding that value.

Steve: I looked at which Scenario was closest to what actually happened in terms of «forcings» in an earlier post (Which I'll try to locate) and, as I recall, the actual forcings were somewhat higher than Scenario B, but not awhich Scenario was closest to what actually happened in terms of «forcings» in an earlier post (Which I'll try to locate) and, as I recall, the actual forcings were somewhat higher than Scenario B, but not aWhich I'll try to locate) and, as I recall, the actual forcings were somewhat higher than Scenario B, but not a lot.

«Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 4.5 is a scenario of long - term, global emissions of greenhouse gases, short - lived species, and land - use - land - cover which stabilizes radiative forcing at 4.5 Watts per meter squared (W m - 2, approximately 650 ppm CO2 - equivalent) in the year 2100 without ever exceeding that value.»

The WGI report is based on a new type of scenarios of future anthropogenic emissions called Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs), which include a mitigation scenario leading to a very low climate forcing, two stabilization scenarios and one scenario with very high GHG emissions.

As scenario analysis is mooted as a useful tool to understand the risks of the energy transition, it is clear that using a scenario with no changes in technology and policy (the CPS) or the new policy scenario (NPS)(AKA the «no new policies scenario»), which includes what is already known about and set to come into force does not help companies or their shareholders understand risk and opportunity.

Challenges to mitigation for the purpose of defining SSPs do not include the stringency of the mitigation target itself or the choice of mitigation action, which are accounted for by two other aspects of the scenario matrix: the forcing level of the representative concentration pathway (RCP) and the shared policy assumption (SPA), respectively.

So I asked Mr. Knappenberger to test the models» agreement with long - term observations using a new «third» scenario in which internal variability once again «enhances» the «externally forced trend» and global warming resumes at the 1984 - 1998 rate of 0.265 ºC / decade.

In this scenario, electricity produced by natural gas power plants could «crowd out» renewable generation by forcing the grid operator to curtail renewables to avoid a situation in which electricity supply exceeds demand.

The figure can be used if you know the radiative forcing, and is handy in light of e.g. the RCP scenarios which are given in terms of expected radiative forcing.

Climate projections are distinguished from climate predictions in order to emphasize that climate projections depend upon the emission / concentration / radiative forcing scenario used, which are based on assumptions concerning, for example, future socioeconomic and technological developments that may or may not be realised and are therefore subject to substantial uncertainty.

However it turns out that for the range of scenarios considered in the simulations behind SPM Fig. 10, the dependence is mostly offset by a dependence of how much warming is «delayed» by the thermal inertia of the oceans (which will also depend on the rate of change in forcing and hence emissions).

It is a stabilization scenario in which total radiative forcing is stabilized shortly after 2100, without overshoot, by the application of a range of technologies and strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions (Fujino et al. 2006; Hijioka et al. 2008).

Another elementary error people are making in the thread is to consider which scenario produced has the closest temperature to actuality, and effectively treat that as a prediction of the forcing.