Sentences with phrase «climate sensitivity as»

The IPCC defines climate sensitivity as «a metric used to characterise the response of the global climate system to a given forcing.

It's as if they have realised that there is no longer any mileage in promoting that particular bunch of myths to policymakers and public alike, so that instead they are going for climate sensitivity as an alternative target.

The IPCC defines climate sensitivity as equilibrium temperature change ΔTλin response to all anthropogenic - era radiativeforcings and consequent «temperature feedbacks» — further changes in TS that occur because TS has already changed in response to a forcing — arising in response to the doubling of pre-industrial CO2 concentration (expected later this century).

Measuring climate sensitivity as a surface temperature delta has to be understood as a long - term equilibrium result not a short - term outcome.

Some of these papers also used other priors for climate sensitivity as alternatives, typically either informative «expert» priors, priors uniform in the climate feedback parameter (1 / S) or in one case a uniform in TCR prior.

So, this (judging climate sensitivity as a function of a single variable) is far more complicated and I see no real justification for the statement that warmer MWP (compared to Mann et al) would mean also higher climate sensitivity.

The Blackboard had a good discussion recently where Lucia insisted a Climate sensitivity as a change to positive forcing can only ever be positive.

While the former initially reduces climate sensitivity by drawing down heat, it then increases climate sensitivity as this heat absorption reduces.

The IPCC defines Equilibrium climate sensitivity as the change in global mean temperature that results when the climate system, or a climate model, attains a new equilibrium with the forcing change resulting from a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration.

Especially since Lewis does not actually calculate the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity factor that is commonly referred to by the IPCC and paleo - climate analyses, but instead the on - going «effective» climate sensitivity as Gregory et al 2002 already pointed out.

Although it is reported that there are some relationships between the present states of cloud (e.g. Williams and Webb 2008, Yokohata et al. 2010) or water vapour (Sherwood et al. 2010) and climate feedback processes, it is not straightforward to relate the reliability of the present behavior and the climate sensitivity as discussed in Sect. 2.3.

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.

But radiative transfer model SpectralCalc computes the CO2 doubling climate sensitivity as 0.2 degK.

I again used the variance in our estimate of climate sensitivity as an indicator of uncertainty — if you are unclear about what that means, refresh your memory here.

He used the weak differentiating power of the method for high values of climate sensitivity as evidence against such high values.

I'd be especially interested in hearing what you believe an increased role of natural variability in the 20th century record implies about climate sensitivity as well as the behavior of the anthropogenic signal «beneath» it.

This is not climate sensitivity as per definition thereof, it's simply the effect of the unhindered or restricted access of the sunlight to the surface.

(The «I think» was because I was hoping to extricate myself from CE for a while to finish off a paper explaining why climate sensitivity as currently defined can neither be measured nor estimated with an error bar less than 1 C per doubling, and proposing a different definition that shrinks the error bar by an order of magnitude.

The problem is ∆ T = λ ∆ Q quantifies climate sensitivity as units of temperature per units of «forcing» power.

Actually it's the observed climate sensitivity as defined by the AHH law and observed in the HadCRUT3 data as detrended and filtered per my poster.

I find Nic Lewis's estimate of 1.6 C for climate sensitivity as a strong indication that previous estimates by the IPCC were exaggerated.

I like the definition of climate sensitivity as «change in surface temperature per unit change in radiative forcing».

The carbon cycle feedback is potentially important to 21st century climate projections, but is not conventionally included in the climate sensitivity as it is not a fast feedback.

There, they define climate sensitivity as how strong an effect doubling CO2 will have on average global temperature.

The Kerr (2004) Science «Three Degrees of Consensus» summary (cited in the paper but not online) gives the current range across models for climate sensitivity as 2.5 c to 4.0 c.

Therefore studies based on observed warming have underestimated climate sensitivity as they did not account for the greater response to aerosol forcing, and multiple lines of evidence are now consistent in showing that climate sensitivity is in fact very unlikely to be at the low end of the range in recent estimates.

The traditional definition of climate sensitivity as a temperature response to changes in CO2 makes sense only in periods between climate shifts — as climate changes at shifts are internally generated.

These models all suggest potentially serious limitations for this kind of study: UVic does not simulate the atmospheric feedbacks that determine climate sensitivity in more realistic models, but rather fixes the atmospheric part of the climate sensitivity as a prescribed model parameter (surface albedo, however, is internally computed).

Some of these papers also used other priors for climate sensitivity as alternatives, typically either informative «expert» priors, priors uniform in the climate feedback parameter (1 / S) or in one case a uniform in TCR prior.

Sure, there might be a few papers that take climate sensitivity as a given and somehow try to draw conclusions about the impact on the climate from that... But, I hardly think that these are swamping the number of papers trying to determine what the climate sensitivity is, studying if the water vapor feedback is working as expected, etc., etc..

Therefore studies based on observed warming have underestimated climate sensitivity as they did not account for the greater response to aerosol forcing, and multiple lines of evidence are now consistent in showing that climate sensitivity is in fact very unlikely to be at the low end of the range in recent estimates.

Not exact matches

As the Climate Science Special Report states, the magnitude of future climate change depends significantly on «remaining uncertainty in the sensitivity of Earth's climate to [greenhouse gas] emissions,»» White House spokesperson Raj Shah said Friday in a staClimate Science Special Report states, the magnitude of future climate change depends significantly on «remaining uncertainty in the sensitivity of Earth's climate to [greenhouse gas] emissions,»» White House spokesperson Raj Shah said Friday in a staclimate change depends significantly on «remaining uncertainty in the sensitivity of Earth's climate to [greenhouse gas] emissions,»» White House spokesperson Raj Shah said Friday in a staclimate to [greenhouse gas] emissions,»» White House spokesperson Raj Shah said Friday in a statement.

An example was Climate Dialogue, which published contributions from scientists with differing views on topics such as climate sensiClimate Dialogue, which published contributions from scientists with differing views on topics such as climate sensiclimate sensitivity.

Gov. Cuomo was adamant that his inaugural be an austere event as a matter of sensitivity during a difficult economic climate.

Climate sensitivity depends on a number of properties of the earth's climate system, such as the composition of clouds and cloudClimate sensitivity depends on a number of properties of the earth's climate system, such as the composition of clouds and cloudclimate system, such as the composition of clouds and cloud cover.

This effect, called climate sensitivity, is usually defined as the warming caused by the doubling of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Will Howard of the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre in Hobart has shown that some species of coral have a similar sensitivity to acidification as foraminifera in parts of the Southern Ocean, which are struggling to build their shells.

Some of Australia's sensitivity to climate change stems from its evolution as a continent.

The conclusion that limiting CO2 below 450 ppm will prevent warming beyond two degrees C is based on a conservative definition of climate sensitivity that considers only the so - called fast feedbacks in the climate system, such as changes in clouds, water vapor and melting sea ice.

Zeebe uses past climate episodes as analogs for the future, which suggest that so - called slow climate «feedbacks» can boost climate sensitivity and amplify warming.

A 2000 - year transient climate simulation with the Community Climate System Model shows the same temperature sensitivity to changes in insolation as does our proxy reconstruction, supporting the inference that this long - term trend was caused by the steady orbitally driven reduction in summer insoclimate simulation with the Community Climate System Model shows the same temperature sensitivity to changes in insolation as does our proxy reconstruction, supporting the inference that this long - term trend was caused by the steady orbitally driven reduction in summer insoClimate System Model shows the same temperature sensitivity to changes in insolation as does our proxy reconstruction, supporting the inference that this long - term trend was caused by the steady orbitally driven reduction in summer insolation.

Sensitivity is a measure of how much species» numbers change as a result of year - to - year changes in the weather — each species is sensitive to different aspects of the climate, such as winter temperature or summer rainfall.

Yet even with those caveats, Shell praised the approach laid out in the new research as a «simple diagnostic... [and] an encouraging step that links observations to climate sensitivity.»

What's more, scientists say the plant's extraordinary sensitivity to temperature makes the industry a strong early - warning system for problems that all food crops are expected to confront as climates continue to change.

One of climate science's great quests is to project how much earth warms when carbon dioxide concentrations double — something known as climate sensitivity.

This increases the amount of sunlight and heat entering the atmosphere and, as a result, increases the sensitivity of our climate to carbon dioxide or any other perturbation.

«I definitely think that we are seeing heightened sensitivity to the economy side of the economy - environment tradeoff,» said Scott Keeter, director of survey research at the Pew Research Center, adding that a number of other polls have shown a slight downward movement in numbers of people who list climate or the environment as a top priority.

By studying the relationship between CO2 levels and climate change during a warmer period in Earth's history, the scientists have been able to estimate how the climate will respond to increasing levels of carbon dioxide, a parameter known as «climate sensitivity».

«If the true climate sensitivity really is as high as 5 degrees C -LSB-(9 degrees F)-RSB-, the only way our descendants will find that out is if they stubbornly hold greenhouse gas concentrations constant for centuries at our target stabilization level.»

I don't care about consensus, but for what it's worth: 10 out of 17 means a 59 % consensus that climate sensitivity is likely to be 2C or lower and as such global warming is not dangerous according to UN politically agreed criteria.