Sentences with phrase «climate sensitivity so»

We have no direct observations of equilibrium climate sensitivity so we have to rely on some form of theory or indirect observations from paleo, at least in part.

I'm no expert on climate sensitivity so I can't really comment on the details except to say that I think all aspects of the model need to be evaluated on their own terms.

(By the way, it is not at all unusual for mainstream alarmist scientists to use this same feedback formula as a useful though imperfect abstraction, for example in Gerard H. Roe and Marcia B. Baker, «Why Is Climate Sensitivity So Unpredictable?»

«Why Is Climate Sensitivity So Unpredictable?»

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

And I want to know what is the maximum climate sensitivity so I can bring in global policies to prevent that happening.

And I want to know what is the maximum climate sensitivity so I can bring in global policies to prevent that happening.

Not exact matches

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.

«To my knowledge, this is the first record that so clearly shows sensitivity to one set of major abrupt climate change events and not another,» said Cobb.

«My view on this is that the research needs to broaden out to have more of a focus on variability more generally so that a) we can predict the next few years better b) we can refine our estimates of the sensitivity of the climate system to increases in greenhouse gas concentrations.»

«Even more interesting is that as satellite measurements continue and so as the datasets get longer, we will be able to recalculate our metric over longer time periods to investigate how and if ecosystem sensitivity to climate variability is changing over time.»

Does it mean that transient climate response (as expressed by ice sheet or see - ice melting among other events) to GHGs is not so far from equilibrium climate sensitivity?

However, by 2015 there probably will not be a plethora of papers cl; aiming a sensitivity of below 1.5 degC so there probably will be nothing to give the IPCC AR5 a fatal blow before the 2015 climate conference takes place.

If temperatures do not increase, even more so should they fall, we will know that the case for AGW has been very much over hyped and that Climate Sensitivity is even lower than even the latest papers are suggesting such that the need to take any action is unlikely.

If that is so, then the future rise (on a climate sensitivity figure of 2degC) would be a further 1.2 degC.

The data is only 33 years in length, but based on that data, there is no first order correlation between temperature and CO2 during its 33 year period and this suggests that then signal to CO2 (ie., Climate Sensitivity) is so low that it can not be measured within the sensitivity, resolution and errors of our best current temperature meSensitivity) is so low that it can not be measured within the sensitivity, resolution and errors of our best current temperature mesensitivity, resolution and errors of our best current temperature measurements.

So in order to constrain the climate sensitivity from the paleo - data, we need to find a period under which our restricted subsystem is stable — i.e. all the boundary conditions are relatively constant, and the climate itself is stable over a long enough period that we can assume that the radiation is pretty much balanced.

The two pieces both spend a lot of time discussing climate sensitivity but since they don't clearly say so upfront, it might not at first be obvious.

The NGN article itself gives a good explanation of climate sensitivity and the various studies and estimates of it, and does quote Michael Schlesinger of the University of Illinois saying that Hegerl's result «means climate sensitivity is larger than we thought for 30 years, so the problem is worse than we thought.

Likewise, we find that natural variability, this last decade warming on the low end compared previous decades, the lack of coverage in the Arctic and so on may have played a role in Lewis» underestimating transient climate sensitivity:

This isn't the place to rehash the climate sensitivity issue (I promise a new post on that shortly), so that will be deemed off - topic.

On the other hand, they do claim the greater changes were perhaps due to forcings & factors (solar radiation & volcanos), so would this then show greater climate sensitivity both to nature & us?

So, there's no reason to believe attribuction - detection of climatologies will not evolve in the future, as well as climate sensitivity for 2xCO2.

Some global warming «skeptics» argue that the Earth's climate sensitivity is so low that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in a surface temperature change on the order of 1 °C or less, and that therefore global warming is nothing to worry about.

So the reference system climate sensitivity parameter is based on a negative feedback due to Stefan's law.

So why should policy makers care what these models predict as climate sensitivity?

Ipso facto, climate sensitivity is at the high end, so discussions of anything else are so much number - crunching.

So, the key thing in evaluating climate sensitivity is to use the LGM as a test of how well the models are doing clouds, using the LGM, and then see what happens in the same model when you project to the future.

They find a climate feedback parameter of 2.3 ± 1.4 W m — 2 °C — 1, which corresponds to a 5 to 95 % ECS range of 1.0 °C to 4.1 °C if using a prior distribution that puts more emphasis on lower sensitivities as discussed above, and a wider range if the prior distribution is reformulated so that it is uniform in sensitivity (Table 9.3).

The risk assessment must be based on every tipping point being breached, so for all intents and purposes, climate sensitivity is unconstrained.

Nic (or anyone else)... would you be able to list all the studies that have used flat priors to estimate climate sensitivity, so that people know to avoid them?

One of his reasons to claim that «the risk of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming appears to be so low that it is not currently worth doing anything to try to control it» is that he uses a very low value for the climate sensitivity based on non-reviewed «studies», while ignoring the peer - reviewed work.

It is even incompatible with the low climate sensitivities you would get in a so - called «no - feedback» response (i.e just the Planck feedback — apologies for the terminological confusion).

It seems to me we should use the higher values for climate sensitivity, including the slower feedbacks, for a complete assessment of risks upto the seventh generation, so to speak.

There is no analog for climate change as humans have triggered it, so our sensitivities are even less sure than the science suggests, even with Earth System Sensitivity since it also presumably doesn't account for rate of change nor the preconditioning the human presence has resulted in.

Climate sensitivity is a perennial topic here, so the multiple new papers and discussions around the issue, each with different perspectives, are worth discussing.

So here are my 7 reasons for why climate scientists should * never * use uniform priors for climate sensitivity, and why the IPCC report shouldn't cite studies that use them.

It is not all that earthshaking that the numbers in Schmittner et al come in a little low: the 2.3 ºC is well within previously accepted uncertainty, and three of the IPCC AR4 models used for future projections have a climate sensitivity of 2.3 ºC or lower, so that the range of IPCC projections already encompasses this possibility.

Are there simple, controlled laboratory experiments that could either shed light on climate sensitivity and / or else help demonstrate, including mostly to skeptics, how changes in trace concentrations of an IR absorber / re-radiator are so effective at changing the temp of a system?

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY: Robby Müller's work on Saint Jack was so unostentatious in its sensitivity to place, climate, hour of day or night, and the very temperature of colors, it immediately suggested itself as a model of the sort of miraculous cinematography never noticed by A.S.C. Oscar nominators.

So, the small reduction in warming in 2100 is fully expected and compatible with standard climate sensitivity arguments, but the statement that the same physics accounts for the Maunder Minimum response is not.

The NGN article itself gives a good explanation of climate sensitivity and the various studies and estimates of it, and does quote Michael Schlesinger of the University of Illinois saying that Hegerl's result «means climate sensitivity is larger than we thought for 30 years, so the problem is worse than we thought.

To what degree it will affect us and how long the world continues to emit so much CO2 and CH4 remains to be seen and the exact climate sensitivity is more elusive, but the range is well evidenced and global warming is more than just evidenced it is certain.

«So the climate model says temperatures will rise by 1 degree and the sensitivity calculation automatically multiplies it by 3.5, and says the temperature will rise by 3.5 degrees.»

As a result, a bigger worry is that there has been higher levels of negative forcing masking much of our AGW and the warming we see so far is associated with relatively low levels of net positive forcing coupled with a high climate sensitivity.

But I understand sea level rise right now is actually towards the upper end of estimates so this suggests either climate sensitivity is towards the high end, or ice sheets are very sensitive to low or medium climate sensitivity.

So the marked early 20th century warming was likely a mixture of recovery from volcanic forcing and accumulated (but masked) greenhouse forcing [the 1880 - 1940 [CO2] rise from ~ 290 — ~ 309 ppm was quite significant (equivalent to nearly 0.3 oC at equilibrium with a mid-range climate sensitivity)-RSB-.

So, relax, CO2 is not a greenhouse gas after all; the climate sensitivity to CO2 must be zero» (though they never say it this clearly.)

[Response: Actual temperature increase is a function of the total forcing, not just CO2 (which, coincidentally, is around 1.7 W / m2 but with error bars of + / -1 W / m2 or so), the climate sensitivity and the thermal inertia in the system.