Sentences with phrase «climate sensitivity analysis»

Climate sensitivity analysis was then applied to the impact models alongside socio - economic criteria to identify communities that are potentially most at risk.

Here we will mainly focus on the surface temperature and climate sensitivity analysis in HS12 and its implications for the future of our climate.

To me, the proper «prior» for climate sensitivity analysis is the base CO2 - doubling sensitivity — ~ 1.2 C. Water vapor enhancement isn't proven because additional WV can both increase (GH effect) and decrease (reflective clouds and increased convection rate) the sensitivity.

With some urgency I'm trying to get some clarity on the status of the climate sensitivity analysis that the Research Council promoted yesterday.

I am a coauthor on a manuscript in revision, Olson et al., JGR - Atmospheres (2011), which has a climate sensitivity analysis from modern (historical instrumental) data, using a similar UVic perturbed - physics ensemble approach.

Not exact matches

For scientists like Fasullo and co-author Kevin Trenberth, head of NCAR's climate analysis section, determining the climate's precise sensitivity to the CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere has been an unusually tough task.

Most of the non-model estimates of climate sensitivity are based on the analyses using other forcings such as solar and aerosols, and the assumption that sensitivity to CO2 will be the same, despite the differences in way these forcings couple to the climate system.

Rather, their analysis shows that if you compare the LGM land cooling with the model land cooling, then the model that fits the land best has much higher GLOBAL climate sensitivity than you get for best fit if you use ocean data.

Wigley et al. (2005b) demonstrate that the analysis method of Douglass and Knox (2005) severely underestimates (by a factor of three) climate sensitivity if applied to a model with known sensitivity.

In Part 1 of this article the nature and validity of emergent constraints [1] on equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) in GCMs were discussed, drawing mainly on the analysis and assessment of 19 such constraints in Caldwell et al. (2018), [2] who concluded that only four of them were credible.

The Schmittner et al. analysis marks the insensitive end of the spectrum of climate sensitivity estimates based on LGM data, in large measure because it used a data set and a weighting that may well be biased toward insufficient cooling.

In Part 1 of this article the nature and validity of emergent constraints [i] on equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) in GCMs were discussed, drawing mainly on the analysis and assessment of 19 such constraints in Caldwell et al (2018; henceforth Caldwell), [ii] who concluded that only four of them were credible.

Paleoclimate data also provide quantitative information about how nominally slow feedback processes amplify climate sensitivity [51]--[52], [54]--[56], which also is important to our analyses.

Climate model studies and empirical analyses of paleoclimate data can provide estimates of the amplification of climate sensitivity caused by slow feedbacks, excluding the singular mechanisms that caused the hyperthermal Climate model studies and empirical analyses of paleoclimate data can provide estimates of the amplification of climate sensitivity caused by slow feedbacks, excluding the singular mechanisms that caused the hyperthermal climate sensitivity caused by slow feedbacks, excluding the singular mechanisms that caused the hyperthermal events.

Balmaseda et al suggest that the recent years may not have much effect on the climate sensitivity after all, and according to their analysis, it is the winds blowing over the oceans that may be responsible for the «slow - down» presented in the Economist.

Some analysis of climate sensitivity has worked with a uniform prior — that's just one where all values are considered equally likely prior to incorporating our data.

Climate sensitivity is something that we (as scientists) get excited about because it is a relatively well - posed question (none of that messy economic analysis or human behaviour include).

Eg the Lea et al 2002 paper I referenced above has the title «Sensitivity analysis of the climate of a chaotic ocean circulation model».

Analysis of the Pliocene (c.f. the Nature geoscience article by Lunt et al) would tend to support total climate sensitivities at or even beyond the high end of the IPCC range (I make that about 4.5 C for a doubling, extrapolating from Lunt's Pliocene warming).

Sensitivity analysis shows that future fire potential depends on many factors such as climate model and emission scenario used for climate change projection.

A new large uncertainty analysis that appeared this week in Nature shows that it is very difficult to get a climate sensitivity below 2 ºC in a climate model, no matter how one changes the parameters.

There are nevertheless some interesting concepts presented in the analysis, such as the connection between climate sensitivity and the magnitude of natural variations.

I have defined on Climate Audit a non-biased sensitivity analysis of the Yamal CRU data for Steve McIntyre:

Instead, we did an extensive parallel set of sensitivity analyses using an EBM w / different estimates of the forcings, different climate sensitivities, etc. and showed that our key conclusions are quite robust.

Steve McIntyre's failed sensitivity analysis has been used by a much wider audience to dispute the Yamal hockey stick, accuse scientists of fraud and undermine the credibility of climate science in general.

This time last year we gave an overview of what different methods of assessing climate sensitivity were giving in the most recent analyses.

Given that models have been improving in their ability to model processes, I personally find it difficult to believe that, at least in terms of a Bayesian analysis, the models themselves aren't doing better in terms of their ability to identify climate sensitivity by applying first principles to our climate system.

The results of the analysis demonstrate that relative to the reference case, projected atmospheric CO2 concentrations are estimated by 2100 to be reduced by 3.29 to 3.68 part per million by volume (ppmv), global mean temperature is estimated to be reduced by 0.0076 to 0.0184 °C, and sea - level rise is projected to be reduced by approximately 0.074 — 0.166 cm, based on a range of climate sensitivities.

No, it is not based on the models - the sensitivity numbers come from multiple, independent analyses - paleoclimate, modern climate, and models.

Also referred to as synthetic scenarios (IPCC, 1994), they are commonly applied to study the sensitivity of an exposure unit to a wide range of variations in climate, often according to a qualitative interpretation of projections of future regional climate from climate model simulations (guided sensitivity analysis, see IPCC - TGCIA, 1999).

But anyway, during the conversation an interesting analysis about climate sensitivity to forcing presented itself, which I've chosen to post here rather than there.

Personally I think AGW theory / analysis has a patchwork of flaws, small enough to be individually brushed aside / downplayed, but which collectively tend to add up / multiply in the same direction towards an exaggeration of climate sensitivity (and how much people should be «alarmed»).

Chris V wrote: «No, it is not based on the models - the sensitivity numbers come from multiple, independent analyses - paleoclimate, modern climate, and models.

A brief analysis based on multi-gas emission pathways and several climate sensitivity uncertainty estimates.

Hansen and colleagues put the design of pathways targeting 350 ppm in the context of a detailed analysis of likely long - term climate sensitivity.

Sensitivity of the climate to carbon dioxide, and the level of uncertainty in its value, is a key input into the economic models that drive cost - benefit analyses, including estimates of the social cost of carbon.

Even if all past warming were attributed to CO2 (a heroic acertion in and of itself) the temperature increases we have seen in the past imply a climate sensitivity closer to 1 rather than 3 or 5 or even 10 (I show this analysis in more depth in this video).

«For now, if our analysis is correct, I think it is important to correct the climate models so that they include reliable sensitivity to solar activity.

Awaiting your reply keenly, Joanne Nova ------------ REFERENCES 1 Hansen J., A. Lacis, D. Rind, G. Russell, P. Stone, I. Fung, R. Ruedy and J. Lerner, (1984) Climate sensitivity: Analysis of feedback mechanisms.

Fred, is the paper you are referencing (quote above) here «Climate sensitivity: Analysis of feedback mechanisms?»

He paid no attention to my points, made strawman arguments based on putting words in my mouth that I had not said, made blatantly false claims about my climate analyses, failed to distinguish the different notions of climate sensitivity, and misrepresented Arrhenius, Let me illustrate with the following dozen -LRB-!)

Italian flag analysis: 30 % Green, 50 % White, 20 % Red (JC Note: all climate models produce this result in spite of different sensitivities and using different forcing data sets; the models do not agree on the causes of the early 20th century warming and the mid-century cooling and do not reproduce the mid-century cooling.)

«New Paper Confirms Findings of Lindzen & Spencer of Very Low Climate Sensitivity to CO2» Analysis.

What I want to say is only that empirical evidence of the type that F+G 06 or any other of these analyses of climate sensitivity or related variables is information on the likelihood function (or equivalently conditional probability), and that this information alone can not provide any PDFs of confidence intervals for the climate sensitivity or a functionally related parameter like Y. To get a PDF or a confidence interval, a prior must be assumed and plausible alternative priors give in this case significantly different results.

«New Paper Finds Climate Sensitivity to CO2 Is About 63 % Less Than IPCC Claims» Analysis.

One empirical analysis of the type of F+G 06 does not tell that the climate feedback parameter Y is 2.3 ± 1.4 W m ^ -2 K ^ -1 with 95 % certaintyor that the equilibrium climate sensitivity is in the corresponding range 1.0 — 4.1 K. Those limits are obtained only, when the additional assumption of uniform prior in Y is made.

How does your analysis allow you to distinguish between a climate sensitivity to changes in CO2 - effected radiative forcing of 0 K / (W.M ^ -2) and say 0.3 K / (W.M ^ -2), if there are these large uncertainties in the values of the forcings?

But in the last analysis, why perfect open loop climate sensitivity modeling when all the real world data are closed loop?

I also liked the sensitivity analysis of solving climate models for prediction.

«Lewis & Crok perform their own evaluation of climate sensitivity, placing more weight on studies using «observational data» than estimates of climate sensitivity based on climate model analysis.»