Sentences with phrase «climate feedback factors»

The observed solar - cycle response suggests that it is a response to radiative effects of the TSI, amplified by the same climate feedback factors as for the greenhouse radiative forcing (52, 53).

Not exact matches

It is the major factor governing how much incoming solar radiation is used to melt the ice and is the main positive feedback in Arctic climate change.

«The various processes and feedbacks between the physical forcing factors in the climate system are under active investigation by a whole community of climate scientists,» he says.

Even models that correctly capture cloud behavior may fail to fully account for other climate feedbacks from factors like changing snow and sea ice cover, atmospheric water vapor content, and temperature.

The magnitudes of the climate factors causing the MOC to weaken, along with the feedbacks and the associated restoring factors, are all uncertain at this time.

(where T = temperature, f = feedback factor and F a Flux or Forcing and C is the baseline climate sensitivity i.e. for a clear atmosphere)

Then on page 9.5 we read «There is very high confidence that the primary factor contributing to the spread in equilibrium climate sensitivity continues to be the cloud feedback.

(I take comfort in the fact that no one else can either) Even if I understood completely and could hypothesise the effect of the huge number of factors and correlations and feedback mechanisms that drive the climate I would not have accurate measurements over any significant timescale to prove this.

So can we take it from this that the climate forcing from feedbacks are far and away the most dominant factor — despite the fact that they haven't been accurately «quantified».

Such geochemical feedbacks can easily depend on the present state of things, and not just the present climate, but the locations and abundances of various geochemical reservoirs and frozen bodies of water, evolved species, soils, topography, etc, that has been shaped by climate and other factors over time.

Agree with Mr. Richards (31) that a «budget» for 1.5 C has already been exceeded — due e.g. to «thermal response factor» (Hansen), present aerosol dimming, further emissions during energy transition, unfolding climate feedbacks and planetary response to actual total carbon dioxide eguivalent.

Thus, it is unlikely that even a running average of temps would exactly correlate with CO2 since independent factors and perhaps negative feedback mechanisms are certain to be present in a system as complex as Earth's climate.

«Researchers (17, 18) estimated mean and SD of feedback factors calculated from two different suites of climate models.

It is not that the polar regions are amplifying the warming «going on» at lower latitudes, it is that any warming going on AT THE POLES is amplified through inherent positive feedback processes AT THE POLES, and specifically this is primarily the ice - albedo positive feedback process whereby more open water leads to more warming leads to more open water, etc. *** «Climate model simulations have shown that ice albedo feedbacks associated with variations in snow and sea - ice coverage are a key factor in positive feedback mechanisms which amplify climate change at high northern latitudes...Climate model simulations have shown that ice albedo feedbacks associated with variations in snow and sea - ice coverage are a key factor in positive feedback mechanisms which amplify climate change at high northern latitudes...climate change at high northern latitudes...»

«Climate model simulations have shown that ice albedo feedbacks associated with variations in snow and sea - ice coverage are a key factor in positive feedback mechanisms which amplify climate change at high northern latitudes...Climate model simulations have shown that ice albedo feedbacks associated with variations in snow and sea - ice coverage are a key factor in positive feedback mechanisms which amplify climate change at high northern latitudes...climate change at high northern latitudes...»

The precise amount of warming will depend on climate sensitivity and the exotic feedbacks that are factored in, but I think you are dancing on the head of a pin with your comments -

This leaves all other feedbacks including changes in ocean circulation, water vapour, clouds, and snow as the undetermined factors in past climate changes.

The two most important ones relate to a) the impact of natural climate variability and forcing factors and b) the sign and magnitude of the net overall feedback that could be expected to occur, which could either amplify or moderate the warming expected from a climate forcing.

With regards to «climate modelling», an assumed (positive water vapour feedback) warming mechanism that can not be observed, that there is no experimental evidence for, combined with after the fact, admitted as invented cooling factors....

It is important to understand feedbacks in order to further quantify the risk factors and time scales involved with climate change.

In order to rescue the situation, Mr. Venkatachalam Ramaswamy had the idea to» float» Lambda, called it «Climate sensitivity», and so was the fixed conversion factor floated (due to «unsure feedbacks etc») and is floating now between 1:1.5 and 1:4.5, as it pleases the authors.

However, I am not a «warmista» by any means — we do not know how to properly quantify the albedo of aerosols, including clouds, with their consequent negative feedback effects in any of the climate sensitivity models as yet — and all models in the ensemble used by the «warmistas» are indicating the sensitivities (to atmospheric CO2 increase) are too high, by factors ranging from 2 to 4: which could indicate that climate sensitivity to a doubling of current CO2 concentrations will be of the order of 1 degree C or less outside the equatorial regions (none or very little in the equatorial regions)- i.e. an outcome which will likely be beneficial to all of us.

The Arctic provides an early indicator of global climate change through feedback systems associated with factors such as the high albedo of snow and ice [Holland and Bitz, 2003].

Changes in ocean chemistry, which can be described through the Revelle buffer factor [1], limit oceanic removal of CO2 [2], while the potential for terrestrial vegetation to take up CO2 is also predicted by some models to fall as the climate warms [3], although the size of this feedback is uncertain [4].

It's deemed a forcing when it is caused by a factor external to the climate system otherwise it is considered an internally induced feedback that automatically results when a forcing nudges things one way or another.

Just seems on top of the un / certainty pick - ems (uncertainty about negative or positive feedback) or the other of gritty hinges we see are at the «core» of the issue that we're almost assuming we can explain the last 14,000 years in climate history to a resolution of a decade and rule out all factors effecting all changes over that time prior to 1850 effectively when we hear statements «high» (most, likely, probably, etc) certainties of understanding what we are seeing being used to support invoking PP.

The main reasons are that (i) other forcing and feedback factors may co-vary in a statistically dependent way with CO2 and can not be separated, (ii) the operation of some climate feedbacks depends on the time scale considered, and (iii) the strength of climate feedbacks depends on the mean climate.

For now it goes into the climate sensitivity factor, as that can contain feedback.

The MIT model permits one to systematically vary the model's climate sensitivity (by varying the strength of the cloud feedback) and rate of mixing of heat into the deep ocean and determine how the goodness - of - fit with observations depends on these factors.

«Reducing the wide range of uncertainty inherent in current model predictions of global climate change will require major advances in understanding and modeling of both (1) the factors that determine atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and aerosols, and (2) the so - called «feedbacks» that determine the sensitivity of the climate system to a prescribed increase in greenhouse gases.»

The essential importance of the choice of prior should have been emphasized, but I think this importance had not really been appreciated widely, as it's specifically related to the fact that climate becomes unstable, when the feedback factor reaches +1 and that all high values of climate sensitivity are according to present thinking due to a feedback factor not far from +1.

Both casual relationships are operative at all times: In the 19th and 20th centuries, the temperature - driving CO2 causal relationship amplified the original temperature effect, as one of several factors leading to a net positive feedback on temperature due to CO2 increase, and a climate sensitivity of about 3C for a doubling of CO2 — a number verified multiple times by calculation from proxy data from multiple epochs in Earths prehistoric past.

The basic results of this climate model analysis are that: (1) it is increase in atmospheric CO2 (and the other minor non-condensing greenhouse gases) that control the greenhouse warming of the climate system; (2) water vapor and clouds are feedback effects that magnify the strength of the greenhouse effect due to the non-condensing greenhouse gases by about a factor of three; (3) the large heat capacity of the ocean and the rate of heat transport into the ocean sets the time scale for the climate system to approach energy balance equilibrium.

Climate sensitivity, meaning the anthropogenic fingerprint including the total of feedbacks etc., is so uncertain that it is mere speculation due to so many unknown factors.

jae says: May 9, 2011 at 7:37 pm... «What I have argued here is that the most likely range of the climate sensitivity is what the IPCC says the most likely range is... which corresponds to feedbacks amplifying the radiative effect due to CO2 alone by a factor of about 3 + / - 1 ″

What I have argued here is that the most likely range of the climate sensitivity is what the IPCC says the most likely range is... which corresponds to feedbacks amplifying the radiative effect due to CO2 alone by a factor of about 3 + / - 1.

ΔTλ is, at its simplest, the product of three factors: the sum ΔF2x of all anthropogenic - era radiativeforcingsat CO2 doubling; the base or «no - feedbacks» climate sensitivity parameter κ; and the feedback multiplier f, such that the final or «with - feedbacks» climate sensitivity parameter λ = κf.

There is no missing heat in this model, but there is an acknowledgement that the negative feedback on the lapse rate is an important factor that suppresses a high climate sensitivity over the ocean.

However, because the feedback factor f depends not only upon the feedback - sum b ≈ 2.16 W m — 2 ° K — 1but also upon κ, the 30 % increase in κ nearly doubles final climate sensitivity:

The base climate sensitivity parameter κis the most influential of the three factors of ΔTλ: for the final or «with - feedbacks» climate sensitivity parameter λ is the product of κand the feedback factor f, which is itselfdependent not only on the sum b of all climate - relevant temperature feedbacks but also on κ.Yet κ has received limited attention in the literature.

``... the amplitude and even the sign of cloud feedbacks was noted in the TAR as highly uncertain, and this uncertainty was cited as one of the key factors explaining the spread in model simulations of future climate for a given emission scenario.

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.