The recent transient warming (combined with ocean heat uptake and our knowledge of climate forcings) points towards a «moderate» value
for the equilibrium sensitivity, and this is consistent with what we know from other analyses.
Second, BEST's result is not
for an equilibrium sensitivity.
It is possible that effective climate sensitivity increases over time (ignoring, as
for equilibrium sensitivity, ice sheet and other slow feedbacks), but there is currently no model - independent reason to think that it does so.
Not exact matches
Where (
equilibrium / effective) climate
sensitivity (S) is the only parameter being estimated, and the estimation method works directly from the observed variables (e.g., by regression, as in Forster and Gregory, 2006, or mean estimation, as in Gregory et al, 2002) over the instrumental period, then the JP
for S will be almost of the form 1 / S ^ 2.
We have often made the case here that
equilibrium climate
sensitivity is most likely to be around 0.75 + / - 0.25 C / (W / m2)(corresponding to about a 3 °C rise
for a doubling of CO2).
Climate
sensitivity is a measure of the
equilibrium global surface air temperature change
for a particular forcing.
Forecast temperature trends
for time scales of a few decades or less are not very sensitive to the model's
equilibrium climate
sensitivity (reference provided).
The real «
equilibrium climate
sensitivity,» which is the amount of global warming to be expected
for a doubling of atmospheric CO2, is likely to be about 1 °C, some three times smaller than most models assumed.
What is the reason
for the changed lower end of the climate
equilibrium sensitivity likely interval since the last IPCC report, 1.5 - 4.5 K vs 2.0 - 4.5 K?
Inverse estimates of aerosol forcing from detection and attribution studies and studies estimating
equilibrium climate
sensitivity (see Section 9.6 and Table 9.3
for details on studies).
ACT - activated clotting time (bleeding disorders) ACTH - adrenocorticotropic hormone (adrenal gland function) Ag - antigen test
for proteins specific to a disease causing organism or virus Alb - albumin (liver, kidney and intestinal disorders) Alk - Phos, ALP alkaline phosphatase (liver and adrenal disorders) Allergy Testing intradermal or blood antibody test
for allergen hypersensitivity ALT - alanine aminotransferase (liver disorder) Amyl - amylase enzyme — non specific (pancreatitis) ANA - antinuclear antibody (systemic lupus erythematosus) Anaplasmosis Anaplasma spp. (tick - borne rickettsial disease) APTT - activated partial thromboplastin time (blood clotting ability) AST - aspartate aminotransferase (muscle and liver disorders) Band band cell — type of white blood cell Baso basophil — type of white blood cell Bile Acids digestive acids produced in the liver and stored in the gall bladder (liver function) Bili bilirubin (bile pigment responsible
for jaundice from liver disease or RBC destruction) BP - blood pressure measurement BUN - blood urea nitrogen (kidney and liver function) Bx biopsy C & S aerobic / anaerobic bacterial culture and antibiotic
sensitivity test (infection, drug selection) Ca +2 calcium ion — unbound calcium (parathyroid gland function) CBC - complete blood count (all circulating cells) Chol cholesterol (liver, thyroid disorders) CK, CPK creatine [phospho] kinase (muscle disease, heart disease) Cl - chloride ion — unbound chloride (hydration, blood pH) CO2 - carbon dioxide (blood pH) Contrast Radiograph x-ray image using injected radiopaque contrast media Cortisol hormone produced by the adrenal glands (adrenal gland function) Coomb's anti- red blood cell antibody test (immune - mediated hemolytic anemia) Crea creatinine (kidney function) CRT - capillary refill time (blood pressure, tissue perfusion) DTM - dermatophyte test medium (ringworm — dermatophytosis) EEG - electroencephalogram (brain function, epilepsy) Ehrlichia Ehrlichia spp. (tick - borne rickettsial disease) EKG, ECG - electrok [c] ardiogram (electrical heart activity, heart arryhthmia) Eos eosinophil — type of white blood cell Fecal, flotation, direct intestinal parasite exam FeLV Feline Leukemia Virus test FIA Feline Infectious Anemia: aka Feline Hemotrophic Mycoplasma, Haemobartonella felis test FIV Feline Immunodeficiency Virus test Fluorescein Stain fluorescein stain uptake of cornea (corneal ulceration) fT4, fT4ed, freeT4ed thyroxine hormone unbound by protein measured by
equilibrium dialysis (thyroid function) GGT gamma - glutamyltranferase (liver disorders) Glob globulin (liver, immune system) Glu blood or urine glucose (diabetes mellitus) Gran granulocytes — subgroup of white blood cells Hb, Hgb hemoglobin — iron rich protein bound to red blood cells that carries oxygen (anemia, red cell mass) HCO3 - bicarbonate ion (blood pH) HCT, PCV, MHCT hematocrit, packed - cell volume, microhematocrit (hemoconcentration, dehydration, anemia) K + potassium ion — unbound potassium (kidney disorders, adrenal gland disorders) Lipa lipase enzyme — non specific (pancreatitis) LYME Borrelia spp. (tick - borne rickettsial disease) Lymph lymphocyte — type of white blood cell MCHC mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration (anemia, iron deficiency) MCV mean corpuscular volume — average red cell size (anemia, iron deficiency) Mg +2 magnesium ion — unbound magnesium (diabetes, parathyroid function, malnutrition) MHCT, HCT, PCV microhematocrit, hematocrit, packed - cell volume (hemoconcentration, dehydration, anemia) MIC minimum inhibitory concentration — part of the C&S that determines antimicrobial selection Mono monocyte — type of white blood cell MRI magnetic resonance imaging (advanced tissue imaging) Na + sodium ion — unbound sodium (dehydration, adrenal gland disease) nRBC nucleated red blood cell — immature red blood cell (bone marrow damage, lead toxicity) PCV, HCT, MHCT packed - cell volume, hematocrit, microhematocrit (hemoconcentration, dehydration, anemia) PE physical examination pH urine pH (urinary tract infection, urolithiasis) Phos phosphorus (kidney disorders, ketoacidosis, parathyroid function) PLI pancreatic lipase immunoreactivity (pancreatitis) PLT platelet — cells involved in clotting (bleeding disorders) PT prothrombin time (bleeding disorders) PTH parathyroid hormone, parathormone (parathyroid function) Radiograph x-ray image RBC red blood cell count (anemia) REL Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever / Ehrlichia / Lyme combination test Retic reticulocyte — immature red blood cell (regenerative vs. non-regenerative anemia) RMSF Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever SAP serum alkaline phosphatase (liver disorders) Schirmer Tear Test tear production test (keratoconjunctivitis sicca — dry eye,) Seg segmented neutrophil — type of white blood cell USG Urine specific gravity (urine concentration, kidney function) spec cPL specific canine pancreatic lipase (pancreatitis)-- replaces the PLI test spec fPL specific feline pancreatic lipase (pancreatitis)-- replaces the PLI test T4 thyroxine hormone — total (thyroid gland function) TLI trypsin - like immunoreactivity (exocrine pancreatic insufficiency) TP total protein (hydration, liver disorders) TPR temperature / pulse / respirations (physical exam vital signs) Trig triglycerides (fat metabolism, liver disorders) TSH thyroid stimulating hormone (thyroid gland function) UA urinalysis (kidney function, urinary tract infection, diabetes) Urine Cortisol - Crea Ratio urine cortisol - creatine ratio (screening test
for adrenal gland disease) Urine Protein - Crea Ratio urine protein - creatinine ratio (kidney disorders) VWF VonWillebrands factor (bleeding disorder) WBC white blood cell count (infection, inflammation, bone marrow suppression)
While I'm posting (I can see how you guys get into this) I'm also very uncomfortable with your notion of «tacit knowledge:» it certainly seems to be tacit knowledge in the blogosphere that the chances of the climate
sensitivity (
equilibrium warming on indefinite stabilization at 560ppm CO2,
for the non-enthusiasts) being greater than or equal to 6 degrees are too small to be worth worrying about (meaning down at the level of an asteroid strike).
Equilibrium sensitivity, including slower surface albedo feedbacks, is 6 °C
for doubled CO2
for the range of climate states between glacial conditions and ice - free Antarctica.»
captdallas2 @ 130 — To become more impressed by the estimate of about 3 K
for Charney
equilibrium climate
sensitivity, read papers by Annan & Hargreaves.
The total surface and atmospheric forcings led Hansen et al. (1993) to infer an
equilibrium global climate
sensitivity of 3 + / - 1C
for doubled CO2 forcing, equivalent to 3/4 + / - 1/4 CW ^ -1 m ^ -2.
Your attempt to estimate
equilibrium climate
sensitivity from the 20th C won't work because a) the forcings are not that well known (so the error in your estimate is large), b) the climate is not in
equilibrium — you need to account
for the uptake of heat in the ocean at least.
I didn't know that data since 1850 as summarized is essentially useless
for estimating climate
sensitivity given that the Earth's radiative heat exchange is not in
equilibrium over that period.
In the interview he mentioned the 11 degrees bit and we chatted
for a while about how that was a very long term figure (such a climate
sensitivity would require a very long time to come into
equilibrium) and how we gave no odds at all of that being the case.
Nevertheless, climate
sensitivity is part of the puzzle, and it particularly matters if you are interested in stabilisation scenarios, since it indicates what a particular
equilibrium CO2 level will mean
for equilibrium climate.
Climate
sensitivity is a measure of the
equilibrium global surface air temperature change
for a particular forcing.
At
equilibrium, T» is constant and equal to Teq», so G * Teq» =
For», thus Teq» =
For» / G, so that
equilibrium climate
sensitivity = 1 / G (perhaps G could be called the climate «insensitivity»).
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).
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.
DDS 1: «The claim of reduced uncertainty
for equilibrium climate
sensitivity is premature» This is what many climate skeptics have been saying
for years and they have been called deniers
for their efforts.
That forcing is just under 4W / m ^ 2, so put differently,
equilibrium climate
sensitivity is the
equilibrium expected surface warming
for a radiative forcing of 1W / m ^ 2, divided by 4.
I never asserted that
sensitivity in terms of
equilibrium time - average surface temperature change per unit change in TOA or even tropopause - level forcing (with or without stratospheric adjustment) would be the same
for each type of forcing
for each climatic state and the external forcings that maintain it (or
for that matter,
for each of those different of forcings (TOA vs tropopause, etc.) with everything held constant.
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.
In this case the CO2 concentration is instantaneously quadrupled and kept constant
for 150 years of simulation, and both
equilibrium climate
sensitivity and RF are diagnosed from a linear fit of perturbations in global mean surface temperature to the instantaneous radiative imbalance at the TOA.
Equilibrium time is typically several centuries, so the equilibrium sensitivity does not matter for scenarios that only span
Equilibrium time is typically several centuries, so the
equilibrium sensitivity does not matter for scenarios that only span
equilibrium sensitivity does not matter
for scenarios that only span a century.
How about this brutally simplified calculation
for a lower bound of
equilibrium temperature
sensitivity: — there seems to be a consensus that transient t.s. <
equilibrium t.s. — today, the trend line is a + 1 C (see Columbia graph)-- CO2 is at 410, which is 1.46 * 280 — rise is logarithmic, log (base2) of 1.46 = 0.55 — 1/0.55 = 1.8 — therefore, a lower bound
for ETS is 1.8 C
One can consider net PR+CR as a response to externally - imposed RF (external forcing) plus feedback «RF», or one can consider PR + CR — feedback «RF» as the response to the externally imposed RF; the later is perhaps more helpful in picturing the time evolution toward
equilibrium (and illustrates why the time it takes
for an imbalance, equal to: externally imposed RF — climate dependent terms (PR + CR — feedback «RF»), to decay is proportional to both heat capacity and climate
sensitivity (defined per unit externally imposed RF).
Depending on meridional heat transport, when freezing temperatures reach deep enough towards low - latitudes, the ice - albedo feedback can become so effective that climate
sensitivity becomes infinite and even negative (implying unstable
equilibrium for any «ice - line» (latitude marking the edge of ice) between the equator and some other latitude).
«Forecast temperature trends
for time scales of a few decades or less are not very sensitive to the model's
equilibrium climate
sensitivity (reference provided).
Climate reconstructions
for the warm periods of the Cenozoic also provide an opportunity to assess Earth - system and
equilibrium climate
sensitivities.
climate
sensitivity =
equilibrium temperature change
for doubled atmospheric CO2 concentration
But 3,2 °C is the best estimate
for equilibrium climate
sensitivity (that is when the runs of models consider all the feedbacks).
By focusing soley on the
equilibrium climate
sensitivity, the authors do miss a lot of features important to people about the overall climate system —
for example, what's the
equilibrium sensitivity of the carbon cycle to the temperature change brought about by 2X CO2?
These additional feedbacks are not still accounted by GCM models, at least those used in IPCC 2007
for equilibrium climate
sensitivity.
Over very long time periods such that the carbon cycle is in
equilibrium with the climate, one gets a
sensitivity to global temperature of about 20 ppm CO2 / deg C, or 75 ppb CH4 / deg C. On shorter timescales, the
sensitivity for CO2 must be less (since there is no time
for the deep ocean to come into balance), and variations over the last 1000 years or so (which are less than 10 ppm), indicate that even if Moberg is correct, the maximum
sensitivity is around 15 ppm CO2 / deg C. CH4 reacts faster, but even
for short term excursions (such as the 8.2 kyr event) has a similar
sensitivity.
«What relevance to a 5 % change in CO2, which at
equilibrium would make a change in temperature of about.0.21 C at
equilibrium based on a clmate
sensitivity of 3C
for doubling.»
This
sensitivity is often represented by the
equilibrium climate
sensitivity, but this quantity is poorly constrained with significant probabilities
for high values.
The effect it has on the
equilibrium sensitivity is more indirect, as the more the ocean can buffer excess heat, the more chance it will give
for CO2 to sequester out of the system.
While the most quoted
sensitivity is the
equilibrium warming
for 2 CO2 this is not necessarily the most useful, as differences in the CO2 radiative forcing can be confused with differences in climate response, and ideally one would like to know the climate response to any forcing mechanism.
The fact that diffusion coefficients can vary over a large range has huge implications
for the
equilibrium climate
sensitivity.
In short, there's absolutely no reason to believe the IPCC's
equilibrium climate
sensitivity range of 2 to 4.5 °C
for doubled CO2 is incorrect.
What relevance does that have to a 5 % change in CO2, which at
equilibrium would make a change in temperature of about.0.21 C at
equilibrium based on a clmate
sensitivity of 3C
for doubling.
Assume a
equilibrium climate
sensitivity for doubling CO2 of 3 degrees, and a transient climate response of 2 degrees.
About the one year to multiyear effect of a one time temperature change and stable temperature after that: The real first year
sensitivity of CO2
for temperature will be 2 - 4 ppmv / °C, the second year it will not be zero, but a lot smaller, as a new
equilibrium between temperature and CO2 levels will be approached.
If we assume the most likely climate
sensitivity estimate is correct (3 °C
for the equivalent of a doubling of atmospheric CO2), the
equilibrium climate
sensitivity parameter is 0.8.
When I rephrased my question and gave some background to my reason
for asking it, you went way outside your area of expertise and turned to stating your opinions (based on you ideological beliefs) about how much your tool says the planet will warm by 2100 (4.4 C you said based on 3.2 C
equilibrium climate
sensitivity).