Sentences with phrase «calculate climate sensitivity»

I strongly suggest you read the articles that are referred to in chapter 9 to understand how they calculate climate sensitivity and the uncertainty ranges therein.

If we make the assumption that very little of the increase occurred prior to 1901, then we calculate the climate sensitivity as 0.78 °C divided by 1.6 W / m2 which yields a value of 0.49 °C / W / m2.

They also allow us to quantify and remove the impacts of these cycles, leaving us with a purely «anthropogenic» series that we can use to calculate climate sensitivity.

So to calculate climate sensitivity from what actually happened between 1970 and 2000 (assuming all the warming was caused by the rise in CO2) we can apply the following equation:

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

Many palaeoclimate studies have quantified pre-anthropogenic climate change to calculate climate sensitivity (equilibrium temperature change in response to radiative forcing change), but a lack of consistent methodologies produces awide range of estimates and hinders comparability of results.

Both use the equations apparently derived from the 1D model to calculate climate sensitivity.

I can't wrap my head around the meaning of the equation being used to calculate climate sensitivity, which is:

Can someone please post me to any journal articles that calculate a climate sensitivity of 2xCO2 of 3 - 4 Watts / m2.

When Otto calculated the climate sensitivity from his data, he found it was about 2 °C — with a range of 0.9 to 5 °C — well below the IPCC's best estimate of 3 °C.

First that CO2 is the main climate driver, second that in calculating climate sensitivity the GHE due to water vapour should be added to that of CO2 as a feed back effect and third that the GHE of water vapour is always positive.As to the last point the feedbacks can not be positive otherwise we wouldn't be here to talk about it.

Calculating a climate sensitivity from the simulations that is directly comparable with that observed shows both are consistent.

This leads to a calculated climate sensitivity * to radiation * of about 0.77 C / (W / m2).

[Response: Climate models (GCMs) calculate their climate sensitivities, they don't assume them.

Second, that in calculating climate sensitivity, the GHE due to water vapor should be added to that of CO2 as a positive feed back effect.

My question is whether this number is substantially different when arrived at by averaging climate sensitivity over a 3D surface or calculating climate sensitivity for a 1D average surface.

A discussion of the use of Bayesian estimation in calculating climate sensitivity (to doubled CO2) occurred recently in the comments at the And Then There's Physics (ATTP) blog.

Calculating climate sensitivity for a 1 - D earth may or may not give very misleading results here.

However, it is still not clear to me whether this creates a problem when calculating the climate sensitivity, because that is dealing with differences.

The IPCC considers all the different ways of calculating climate sensitivity, without making a value judgment about which is best.

section to better reflect the different approaches to calculating climate sensitivity.

«I... calculated climate sensitivities from the annual changes in surface temperature and radiative forcings»

It is «merely» filled with references to the literature in which the climate sensitivity is calculated, using all your precious equations (there isn't just one required to calculated climate sensitivity).

In my (very humble) view, the beauty of the observational approach to calculating the climate sensitivity, as opposed to paleo or GCMs, is that most terms of the equation are solved with values that we can be quite confident about.

Additionally, while AR4 calculates a Climate Sensitivity (for a doubling of CO2) of 2.0 - 4.5 degC, AR5 expands the uncertainty interval to 1.5 - 4.5 degC.

But Sherwood Idso in 1998 calculated the Climate Sensitivity to be 0.4 °C, and more recently Richard Lindzen at 0.5 °C.

Not exact matches

Using information from pre-historic climate archives, Zeebe calculated how slow climate feedbacks (land ice, vegetation, etc.) and climate sensitivity may evolve over time.

The «equilibrium» sensitivity of the global surface temperature to solar irradiance variations, which is calculated simply by dividing the absolute temperature on the earth's surface (288K) by the solar constant (1365Wm - 2), is based on the assumption that the climate response is linear in the whole temperature band starting at the zero point.

In order to calculate the terrestrial response to more ephemeral solar variations, S&W introduce another type of «climate sensitivity» which they calculate separately for each of two components representing frequency ranges 7.3 - 14.7 and 14.7 - 29.3 year ranges respectively.

They used some crude estimates of «climate sensitivity» and estimates of Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) to calculate temperature signal (in form of anomalies).

A team led by Kate Marvel (among them also the known climate activist Gavin Schmidt) claimed in February, 2018, in the Geophysical Research Letters that the real temperature trend of the last decades are not suitable for calculating CO2 climate sensitivity.

That's the same value for climate sensitivity I've seen from the string theory physics site and from knowledgeable climate sites as well — it's the number people get this way: calculated in the absence of any feedback, on the hypothetical twinning of each molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere to make two where there were one, instantly, and having nothing else happen.

He did explain clearly to me why climate sensitivity is, as he calculates it, one degree (here's how: twin each CO2 molecule, two for one, with nothing else changing; assuming all else is held constant, he's right; not in the real world, but in theory, correct).

But the Schmittner paper is only focused on a global climate sensitivity, and that's what they calculate and report.

My main criticism of their study is that they have calculated effective climate sensitivity (their ICS) on a basis which is wrong for ICS in GCMs; their basis is also inconsistent with observationally - based estimates of ICS.

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.

Other researchers have tried to calculate the climate's sensitivity using temperature data collected at the Earth's surface.

We calculate global temperature change for a given CO2 scenario using a climate response function (Table S3) that accurately replicates results from a global climate model with sensitivity 3 °C for doubled CO2 [64].

Bayes theorem provides a simple formula for calculating how much each new bit of information improves (or not) your prior estimates and this can be applied to the uncertain distribution of climate sensitivity.

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.

Aslo, regarding climate sensitivity a very key thing to remember, especially if sensitivity turns out to be on the high side, is that the «final» equilibrium temperature (Alexi's concerns about there being such a thing aside) calculated from climate sensitivity does not take into account carbon cycle feedbacks OR ice sheet changes.

In the final report from CLIMSENS Berntsen et al has calculated their best estimate of climate sensitivity to be 1.9 °C.

Regarding ECS («equilibrium climate sensitivity»), I think there are difficulties estimating anything truly resembling a Charney - type ECS from data involving OHC uptake and forcing estimates, because these estimates are fraught with so many uncertainties, and because the values that are calculated, even if accurate, bear an uncertain relationship to how the climate would behave at equilibrium.

My main criticism of their study is that they have calculated effective climate sensitivity (their ICS) on a basis which is wrong for ICS in GCMs; their basis is also inconsistent with observationally - based estimates of ICS.

As the comment from Covey et al makes clear, he is calculating a sensitivity to surface energy fluxes that is almost 100x larger than standard estimates of the climate sensitivity.

The quote from the NRC report is, frankly, a little odd, since it is bizarre that anyone would attempt to calculate the surface temperature (which is well observed) using the atmospheric heat content and climate sensitivity (which are not).

2) the climate sensitivity to solar changes should be calculated by going as far as possible in the past by using as much as possible data.

Essentially Charney climate sensitivity is calculated only with the fast feedbacks: water vapor, sea ice, etc..

Shock Paper Cites Formula That Precisely Calculates Planetary Temps WITHOUT Greenhouse Effect, CO2 — CO2 Climate Sensitivity So Low It's «Impossible To Detect Or Measure In The Real Atmosphere» http://www.newscats.org/?p=13539

Using the SFZ 2008 tar file archive data in combination with the deep - ocean diagnostic model and control - run data used in SFZ 2008, and a deep - ocean diagnostic observational trend calculated from the Levitus et al 2005 dataset, I can produce broadly similar climate parameter PDFs to those in the Forest 2006 main results (Figure 2: GSOLSV, κsfc = 16, uniform prior), with a peak climate sensitivity around S = 3.