Sentences with phrase «average model sensitivity»

Nearly every paper that I have seen recently that has indicated a meaningful change in rate for a variable related to warming has suggested that, if anything, average model sensitivity may be too low, with positive feedbacks underestimated.

Nearly every paper that I have seen recently that has indicated a meaningful change in rate for a variable related to warming has suggested that, if anything, average model sensitivity may be too low, with positive feedbacks underestimated.

Not exact matches

Surely an unplanned blunder on Newsweek's part, but a blunder nonetheless (perhaps worse in the long run exactly because it was unconscious and indicates not deliberate discrimination but a naive lack of sensitivity) A balance of exceptional model elders with equal numbers of average everyday folk would provide a more accurate picture of the aging as they really are, with their very human combinations of merits and faults.

The addition says many climate models typically look at short term, rapid factors when calculating the Earth's climate sensitivity, which is defined as the average global temperature increase brought about by a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere.

The 100 % anthropogenic attribution from climate models is derived from climate models that have an average equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) around 3C.

Figure 3 shows the same records, with the addition of the results from the average models from the Forster study, the results that the models were calculated to have on average, and the results if we assume a climate sensitivity of 3.0 W / m2 per doubling of CO2.

Each SCC estimate is the average of numerous iterations (10,000 in the EPA's assessment, which we reproduce here) of the model using different potential values for climate sensitivity (how much warming a doubling of CO2 will generate).

So what happens if we calculate dT, dN, and dF at every gridpoint of the model, use that to solve for climate sensitivity and then take the average to have a global climate sensitivity number?

If the two methods do lead to different estimates of climate sensitivity, I find it difficult to believe that the 1D model is more appropriate than 3D to making claims about how much the real average temperature will rise due to a given influence.

In that paper they use the 1D model to calculate climate sensitivity from averages of CIMP5 output.

The required correction to total forcing in order for the regression of GMST on total forcing to produce that sensitivity should represent the additional ERFaero included in the CMIP5 models on average.

Due to the sensitivity on initial values also within limits of reasonable agreement with real weather patterns at a specific moment of time, the interesting results come from averages over many model runs or over long enough periods to remove the dependence on initial values.

That may go some way to explaining why a low sensitivity model works better on global averages but it's not just a case of playing with the global tuning knob.

«all of the coupled climate models used in the IPCC AR4 reproduce the time series for the 20th century of globally averaged surface temperature anomalies; yet they have different feedbacks and sensitivities and produce markedly different simulations of the 21st century climate.»

2) CAGW movement type models never reconstruct any lengthy past history accurately without creative and unique adjustment of aerosol values used as a fudge factor; that is why models of widely varying sensitivities supposedly all accurately reconstruct the past (different made - up assumed historical values used for each) but fail in future prediction, like they didn't predict how global average temperatures have been flat to declining over the past 15 years.

The fact that the CMIP simulations ensemble mean can reproduce the 1970 — 2010 US SW temperature increase without inclusion of the AMO (the AMO is treated as an intrinsic natural climate vari - ability that is averaged out by taking an ensemble mean of individual simulations) suggests that the CMIP5 models» predicted US SW temperature sensitivity to the GHG has been significantly (by about a factor of two) overestimated.

«The fact that the CMIP simulations ensemble mean can reproduce the 1970 — 2010 US SW temperature increase without inclusion of the AMO (the AMO is treated as an intrinsic natural climate variability that is averaged out by taking an ensemble mean of individual simulations) suggests that the CMIP5 models» predicted US SW temperature sensitivity to the GHG has been significantly (by about a factor of two) overestimated.»

AR5 (as Nic Lewis regularly points out) concludes a most likely net aerosol offset of -0.9 watt / M ^ 2, which is bizarrely inconsistent with the average level of aerosol offsets used by the AR5 climate model ensemble (much higher offsets in the models), and most consistent with a fairly low (< 2C per doubling) climate sensitivity to forcing.

Then an average sensitivity based on the latitudinal trends being 1.48 C per doubling might be some indication of future response to CO2, which appears to be somewhat less than 0.2 C per, though still within the confidence interval of the model predictions, just closer to scenario C.

Most of these sensitivities are a good 40 % below the average climate sensitivity of the models used by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Is climate sensitivity a metric input into the computer models that have been used to predict future global average temperatures as a justification for CAGW policy initiatives.

It is also clear that the temperature sensitivity to CO2 is below the low end of the model ranges.The models are simply structured incorrectly so that their average range is an average of improperly structured models.

Is this «enough» quantitation, or do you require «more»: The 100 % anthropogenic attribution from climate models is derived from climate models that have an average equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) around 3C.

Those based on instrumental temperature records (e.g., thermometer measurements over the past 150 years or so) have a mean sensitivity of around 2.5 C, while climate models average closer to 3.5 C.

That conclusion, in conjunction with a climate model incorporating only the most fundamental processes, constrains average fast - feedback climate sensitivity to be in the upper part of the sensitivity range that is normally quoted [1,48,99], i.e. the sensitivity is greater than 3 °C for 2 × CO2.

That science suggests the equilibrium climate sensitivity probably lies between 1.5 °C and 2.5 °C (with an average value of 2.0 °C), while the climate models used by the IPCC have climate sensitivities which range from 2.1 °C to 4.7 °C with an average value of 3.2 °C.

There are two prominent and undeniable examples of the models» insufficiencies: 1) climate models overwhelmingly expected much more warming to have taken place over the past several decades than actually occurred; and 2) the sensitivity of the earth's average temperature to increases in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations (such as carbon dioxide) averages some 60 percent greater in the IPCC's climate models than it does in reality (according to a large and growing collection of evidence published in the scientific literature).

Loehle estimated the equilibrium climate sensitivity from his transient calculation based on the average transient: equilibrium ratio projected by the collection of climate models used in the IPCC's most recent Assessment Report.

From the recent literature, the central estimate of the equilibrium climate sensitivity is ~ 2 °C, while the climate model average is ~ 3.2 °C, or an equilibrium climate sensitivity that is some 40 % lower than the model average.

«Despite a wide range of climate sensitivity (i.e. the amount of surface temperature increase due to a change in radiative forcing, such as an increase of CO2) exhibited by the models, they all yield a global average temperature change very similar to that observed over the past century.

It does suggest that current models with an ECS of below 2.5 °C are poor at simulating the observed TLC reflection — SST relationship, but that may be unrelated to their lower than average sensitivity.

The models do reproduce the 20th century, and even the last 1000 years globally averaged reasonably well, observational data of forcing factors permitting, and they do this with the same physics that produce 2xCO2 sensitivity as 2.9 oC There is another essential factor in looking at current T rise vs CO2 forcing and that is the global dimming phenomenon.