Sentences with phrase «equilibrium climate sensitivity used»

Cox et al.'s calculations of the equilibrium climate sensitivity used a key metric which was derived from the Hasselmann model and assumed a constant C:.

Not exact matches

Using the middle of the range of climate sensitivities of 3 oC of warming at equilibrium per doubling of [CO2], a rise of [CO2] from 280 - 310 ppm should give 0.44 oC at equilibrium.

You can not use equilibrium climate sensitivity to estimate the response to an 11 year periodic forcing — precisely because it is not in equilibirum!

The true equilibrium climate sensitivity for the climate models used in this demonstration is in the range 2.1 — 4.4, and the transient climate sensitivity is 1.2 — 2.6 (IPCC AR5, Table 8.2).

The approximately 20 - year lag (between atmospheric CO2 concentration change and reaching equilibrium temperature) is an emerging property (just like sensitivity) of the global climate system in the GCM models used in the paper I linked to above, if I understood it correctly.

Nonetheless, there is a tendency for similar equilibrium climate sensitivity ECS, especially using a Charney ECS defined as equilibrium global time average surface temperature change per unit tropopause - level forcing with stratospheric adjustment, for different types of forcings (CO2, CH4, solar) if the forcings are not too idiosyncratic.

Heat capacity that is «used» over a longer period of time (penetration of temperature change through the depths of the ocean and up to regions of upwelling) would leave a more persistent residual imbalance, but the effect would only just stall the full change to equilibrium climate, not change the long term equilibrium sensitivity.)

Hegerl et al (2006) for example used comparisons during the pre-industrial of EBM simulations and proxy temperature reconstructions based entirely or partially on tree - ring data to estimate the equilibrium 2xCO2 climate sensitivity, arguing for a substantially lower 5 % -95 % range of 1.5 — 6.2 C than found in several previous studies.

part of the utility is that Charney sensitivity, using only relatively rapid feedbacks, describes the climate response to an externally imposed forcing change on a particular timescale related to the heat capacity of the system (if the feedbacks were sufficiniently rapid and the heat capacity independent of time scale (it's not largely because of oceanic circulation), an imbalance would exponentially decay on the time scale of heat capacity * Charney equilibrium climate sensitivity.

Actually, we're using the term climate sensitivity in the same sense, the equilibrium response of mean temp to the surface radiative forcing associated with CO2 doubling.

These additional feedbacks are not still accounted by GCM models, at least those used in IPCC 2007 for equilibrium climate sensitivity.

If I am right, then correct processing of the data used in Forest 2006 would lead to the conclusion that equilibrium climate sensitivity (to a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere) is close to 1 °C, not 3 °C, implying that likely future warming has been grossly overestimated by the IPCC.

New, relevant, readily available, and influential science on a topic considered to be a «key factor» in the determination of the SCC — the distribution of the estimated value of the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS)-- was not included in the 2013 SCC update used in the final rulemaking.

(ppm) Year of Peak Emissions Percent Change in global emissions Global average temperature increase above pre-industrial at equilibrium, using «best estimate» climate sensitivity CO 2 concentration at stabilization (2010 = 388 ppm) CO 2 - eq.

The manuscript uses a simple energy budget equation (as employed e.g. by Gregory et al 2004, 2008, Otto et al 2013) to test the consistency between three recent «assessments» of radiative forcing and climate sensitivity (not really equilibrium climate sensitivity in the case of observational studies).

That is probably an inappropriate use of an equilibrium climate sensitivity parameter and would therefore overstate the short term temperature impact.

The three successive IPCC reports (1991 [2], 1996, and 2001 [3]-RRB- concentrated therefore, in addition to estimates of equilibrium sensitivity, on estimates of climate change over the 21st century, based on several scenarios of CO2 increase over this time interval, and using up to 18 general circulation models (GCMs) in the fourth IPCC Assessment Report (AR4)[4].

But seriously, I look at your use of terms like «forcing», and «feedback», and «equilibrium climate sensitivity», and «CO2 control knob», and I feel sorta like a modern redox chemist watching a bunch of biologists trying to study the cell by measuring its «phlogiston» characteristics.

It focuses on the key measure, known as equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), which is used by climate scientists to make predictions.

We argue that had the new science indicating a lower equilibrium climate sensitivity been properly incorporated into the determination of the SCC used by the DOE, it would have had a significant impact on the cost / benefit analysis used to justify the new regulation.

Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely between 1.5 K to 4.5 K, with that range to likely increase to 2K to 4.5 K now that the errors in the energy - budget - model - based approaches (used by Lewis, Curry, and others) have been identified.

As for the LGM, equilibrium climate sensitivity estimates depend strongly on the temperature data used.

I argued that there are three technical reasons that the single value the IWG developed and proposed for use in this initiative should not be used exclusively: global benefits, discount rates and equilibrium climate sensitivity.

Along with the corrected value of F2xCO2 being higher than the one used in the paper, and the correct comparison being with the model's effective climate sensitivity of ~ 2.0 C, this results in a higher estimate of equilibrium efficacy from Historical total forcing.

My fundamental problem with the IWG SCC value is that they did not use the latest value of the Equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS).

The IPCC AR4 states that equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely (> 66 %) to lie in the range 2 — 4.5 C and very unlikely (< 10 %) to lie below 1.5 C. Annan and Hargreaves demonstrate that the the widely - used approach of a uniform prior fails to adequately represent «ignorance» and generates rather pathological results which depend strongly on the selected upper bound.

Where did I ever say I was using «climate sensitivity» to refer to the equilibrium concept?

«Climate sensitivity estimates are greatly impacted by such variability especially when the observed record is used to try to place limits on equilibrium climate sensitivity [Otto et al., 2013], and simply using the ORAS - 4 estimates of OHC changes in the 2000s instead of those used by Otto... changes their computed equilibrium climate sensitivity from 2.0 °C to 2.5 °C, for inClimate sensitivity estimates are greatly impacted by such variability especially when the observed record is used to try to place limits on equilibrium climate sensitivity [Otto et al., 2013], and simply using the ORAS - 4 estimates of OHC changes in the 2000s instead of those used by Otto... changes their computed equilibrium climate sensitivity from 2.0 °C to 2.5 °C, for inclimate sensitivity [Otto et al., 2013], and simply using the ORAS - 4 estimates of OHC changes in the 2000s instead of those used by Otto... changes their computed equilibrium climate sensitivity from 2.0 °C to 2.5 °C, for inclimate sensitivity from 2.0 °C to 2.5 °C, for instance.

Using short records with uncertain forcings of the Earth system that is not in equilibrium does not (yet) produce reliable estimates of climate sensitivity.»

No: that is the beauty of using top of atmosphere radiative balance data — it automatically reflects the flow of heat into the ocean, so thermal inertia of the oceans is irrelevant to the estimate of equilibrium climate sensitivity that it provides, unlike with virtally all other instrumental methods.

MAGICC gives the average of the GCM used by the IPCC, and assumes a 3 C equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS).

Hector — I didn't quite say «easily solved», but the Transient Climate Response (TCR) can serve as a useful approximation to equilibrium climate sensitivity, and moreover, may be of greater practical use, since it predicts climate responses over the course of decades rather than those that might eventuate one thousand yearsClimate Response (TCR) can serve as a useful approximation to equilibrium climate sensitivity, and moreover, may be of greater practical use, since it predicts climate responses over the course of decades rather than those that might eventuate one thousand yearsclimate sensitivity, and moreover, may be of greater practical use, since it predicts climate responses over the course of decades rather than those that might eventuate one thousand yearsclimate responses over the course of decades rather than those that might eventuate one thousand years later.

Energy budget estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) and transient climate response (TCR) are derived using the comprehensive 1750 — 2011 time series and the uncertainty ranges for forcing components provided in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Working Group I Report, along with its estimates of heat accumulation in the climate climate sensitivity (ECS) and transient climate response (TCR) are derived using the comprehensive 1750 — 2011 time series and the uncertainty ranges for forcing components provided in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Working Group I Report, along with its estimates of heat accumulation in the climate climate response (TCR) are derived using the comprehensive 1750 — 2011 time series and the uncertainty ranges for forcing components provided in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Working Group I Report, along with its estimates of heat accumulation in the climate Climate Change Fifth Assessment Working Group I Report, along with its estimates of heat accumulation in the climate climate system.

That science suggests the equilibrium climate sensitivity probably lies between 1.5 °C and 2.5 °C (with an average value of 2.0 °C), while the climate models used by the IPCC have climate sensitivities which range from 2.1 °C to 4.7 °C with an average value of 3.2 °C.

Loehle estimated the equilibrium climate sensitivity from his transient calculation based on the average transient: equilibrium ratio projected by the collection of climate models used in the IPCC's most recent Assessment Report.

Spencer and Braswell freely admit that using their simple model is just the first step in a complicated diagnosis, but also point out that the results from simple models provide insight that should help guide the development of more complex models, and ultimately could help unravel some of the mystery as to why full climate models produce high estimates of the earth's equilibrium climate sensitivity, while estimates based in real - world observations are much lower.

Therein you will find a lot of discussion about discount rates, «leakage», using a U.S. SCC v. a global SCC, average ton of CO2 v. marginal ton, «equilibrium climate sensitivity», and more.

Transient climate response (TCR) and equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) were calculated by the modelling groups (using atmosphere models coupled to slab ocean for equilibrium climate sensitivity), except those in italics, which were calculated from simulations in the MMD at PCMDI.

I have written extensively on the shortcomings of the Administration's determination of the SCC (for example, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/obamas-social-cost-carbon-odds-science) and the folks at the Heritage Foundation just yesterday released a report looking at what would happen in DICE model if recent estimates of the equilibrium climate sensitivity were used in place of the (outdated) ones used by the Administration.

You've used a couple simple equations which the IPCC has included on climate sensitivity (in equilibrium) and forcing due to greenhouse gases (but not aerosols) and, apparently, assumed that those were the published methodology.

«Using a probabilistic setup of a reduced complexity model and an ensemble of an Earth System Model, we showed that unforced climate variability is important in the estimation of the climate sensitivity, in particular when estimating the most likely value, and more so for the equilibrium than for the transient response.

I have, incidentally, found using a multilayer diffusive ocean model that there is a near complete identity in the path of the model surface temperature response to a step forcing, for the better part of a century, over a wide range of equilibrium climate sensitivities if effective ocean diffusivity is varied to compensate.

When zero - intercept regressions are used for estimation, the transient efficacy of Historical iRF is then 1.02, and the equilibrium efficacy is also 1.02 (1.09 with ΔQ divided by 0.86), based on an effective climate sensitivity of 2.0 °C for the model.

The current energy imbalance (just a little less than 1 W / m2) implies that the planet would need to warm by ~ 1 x S / 3.7 ºC to restore an equilibrium, and using the standard climate sensitivity of 3ºC for a doubling of CO2, implies a committed warming of 0.8 ºC or so.

Snyder also uses the inferred record of global temperature to estimate equilibrium climate sensitivity including slow feedbacks, sometimes called ESS, suggesting that doubled CO2 (4 W / m2 forcing) would eventually cause global warming of 7 - 13C.

The inter-model correlation of transient climate response with ocean heat uptake efficacy is greater than its correlation with equilibrium climate sensitivity in an ensemble of climate models used for the 3rd and 4th IPCC assessments.