Sentences with phrase «estimate of climate sensitivity comes»

Because of the many uncertainties involved, any estimate of climate sensitivity comes with a range, a lower and upper limit within which the real value could reasonably lie.

Your estimates of climate sensitivity come from the IPCC, which assumes that aerosols will continue to provide a very strong cooling effect that offsets about half of the warming from CO2, but you are talking about time frames in which we have stopped burning fossil fuels, so is it appropriate to continue to assume the presence of cooling aerosols at these future times?

Not exact matches

In the end, Archibald concludes that the warming from the next 40 ppm of CO2 rise (never mind the rest of it) will only be 0.04 degrees C. Archibald's low - ball estimate of climate change comes not from the modtran model my server ran for him, but from his own low - ball value of the climate sensitivity.

Now comes a new entry in the effort to specify the value known as «climate sensitivity,» and it falls on the low side of the existing estimates.

It seems the estimates of climate sensitivity may be coming down (but that may be my bias).

Gavin's refusal to admit the extreme LU efficacy comes down to accepting one very dubious run, a run which is a clear statistical outlier, goes to the heart of the problem with Marvel et al: the authors got results they «liked» (lower efficacy for many forcings implies higher climate sensitivity... casting doubt on lower empirical estimates), and so failed to critically examine if their results might have errors.

So estimates of climate sensitivity and future warming need to come down by a factor of two.

Can anyone please explain for me (i.e. in simple, non-technical terms) the significance of this paper to the estimates of climate sensitivity that come from the models?

The absolute truth will not be known for a century, if ever, but we may get some good indications if the coming decades see stabilization of temperatures despite what seems inevitable CO2 increases, which will argue for a much lower level of CO2 sensitivity than estimated by the official climate Team.

The second entry to our list of low climate sensitivity estimates comes from Roy Spencer and William Braswell and published in the Asia - Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences.

By dividing the total temperature change (as indicated by the best - fit linear trend) by the observed rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide content, and then applying that relationship to a doubling of the carbon dioxide content, Loehle arrives at an estimate of the earth's transient climate sensitivity — transient, in the sense that at the time of CO2 doubling, the earth has yet to reach a state of equilibrium and some warming is still to come.