Sentences with phrase «imply higher climate sensitivity»

«Observational Constraints on Mixed - Phase Clouds Imply Higher Climate Sensitivity.»

There could also be tipping points, which would imply a high climate sensitivity.

Gavin's refusal to admit the extreme LU efficacy comes down to accepting one very dubious run, a run which is a clear statistical outlier, goes to the heart of the problem with Marvel et al: the authors got results they «liked» (lower efficacy for many forcings implies higher climate sensitivity... casting doubt on lower empirical estimates), and so failed to critically examine if their results might have errors.

Conversely a low forcing giving rise to the same observed temperature gain implies a high climate sensitivity.

Not exact matches

The need for prompt (urgent) action implied by these realities may not be a surprise to the relevant scientific community, because paleoclimate data revealed high climate sensitivity and the dominance of amplifying feedbacks.

The low sensitivity you quote is just as incredible as the high numbers discussed above (think about what it would imply for the glacial climate).

This seems to imply the water vapor feedback gets stronger at higher temperatures so that the climate sensitivity does not decrease.

Conversely, if «climate sensitivity» for a doubling of CO2 is based on recent measurements and CO rates, and past natural variability is underestimated — as you've shown here — then this implies our estimates of sensitivity per CO2 doubling is too high, not too low.

«We can rule out very low climate sensitivities that might imply you don't need to do very much at all but also very high climate sensitivities that would be very difficult to adapt to.

I think James» point about the last decade is not that global warming has stopped (implying low or zero climate sensitivity) but that it has not accelerated to the extent that it would have if climate sensitivity were very high (above, say, 4).

The problem catastrophists have with defending their higher climate sensitivities is that these sensitivities imply that we should have seen much more warming over the past 100 years, as much as 1.5 C or more instead of about 0.6 C.

The fact remains that the IPCC report altered the conclusions of the original paper, and in a direction to imply a higher and more alarming climate sensitivity, without giving the original results or explaining clearly what they'd done to alter them.

Which would, of course, imply an absurdly high effective climate sensitivity.

BBD wrote: «Implying or stating that the slow - down in warming is evidence that AGW is «refuted» or the more nuanced version that it shows that the climate sensitivity estimate is too high is misrepresentation.»

Implying or stating that the slow - down in warming is evidence that AGW is «refuted» or the more nuanced version that it shows that the climate sensitivity estimate is too high is misrepresentation.

This implies that the climate sensitivity (the temperature increase with a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration) is at the higher end of the range of estimates.

The impression I've gotten is that some people, not knowing that «net positive feedback» may exclude the Planck response, think that this must imply the climate is unstable — the funny thing is, this will be used to argue for a lower climate sensitivity, but one could see that something is wrong here because the higher climate sensitivity caused by the positive feedback is still finite.

(Note that the 2C climate sensitivity this result implies doesn't allow for any forcings other than CO2, so it will be too high).

Interestingly enough with regards to LC09, aside from the errors discussed above, there was a paper by Forester & Gregory published in 2006 that also analyzed the ERBE data and came to the exact opposite conclusion — a positive feedback factor of around 2.3 Wm - 2 / K, implying a climate sensitivity higher than the IPCC.