Sentences with phrase «forcing uncertainty»

That report relies on studies that include the large aerosol forcing uncertainty, so criticizing my paper for that would be inconsistent.

However, as pointed out by the authors, this estimate does not account for forcing uncertainties.

There will be a whole host of forcing uncertainties in the 21st century that we don't know.

We can answer this question by performing another set of sensitivity studies where we consider only the effects of indirect forcing uncertainties.

A further consideration in assessing these results is the extent to which realistic forcing estimates were used, and whether forcing uncertainty was included.

The game does its best to force uncertainty onto the player, a feeling which only continues to grow as the game progresses.

Only a few estimates account for uncertainty in forcings other than from aerosols (e.g., Gregory et al., 2002a; Knutti et al., 2002, 2003); some other studies perform some sensitivity testing to assess the effect of forcing uncertainty not accounted for, for example, in natural forcing (e.g., Forest et al., 2006; see Table 9.1 for an overview).

Bradley's simple «recordings,» whether on video or in photographs, mask an intricate conceptual, autobiographical project in which complex strategies force uncertainty to the surface.

Solar forcing uncertainty is included in Table 8.7.

Ideally, studies account for model uncertainty, forcing uncertainty (for example, in aerosol forcing εaer or natural forcing εnat), uncertainty in observations, εobs, and internal climate variability («noise»).

An exponential (grows at an increasing rate) scale provides detail for small tasks and forces uncertainty for large tasks.

The consistency between modeled and observed temperatures is nice, but there's a number of possible solutions that are all consistent with the modern climate when you factor in aerosol forcing uncertainty, uncertainty in the rate of ocean heat uptake, as well as in the «true» equilibrium climate sensitivity.

Neither of these cases imply that the forcings or models are therefore perfect (they are not), but deciding whether the differences are related to internal variability, forcing uncertainties (mostly in aerosols), or model structural uncertainty is going to be harder.

In the middle of the article you wrote: «-LRB-...) deciding whether the differences are related to internal variability, forcing uncertainties (mostly in aerosols), or model structural uncertainty is going to be harder.»

Ideally, one would want to do a study across all these constraints with models that were capable of running all the important experiments — the LGM, historical period, 1 % increasing CO2 (to get the TCR), and 2xCO2 (for the model ECS)-- and build a multiply constrained estimate taking into account internal variability, forcing uncertainties, and model scope.

I think that the forcing uncertainties would greatly hinder this analysis.

That could be taking your favorite three and four letter acronyms to describe some state of the atmosphere - ocean, and some forcing uncertainty issues thrown in, but there's not much compelling evidence there's any big implication for sensitivity.

This conclusion takes into account observational and forcing uncertainty, and the possibility that the response to solar forcing could be underestimated by climate models.

Of the 10 single - forcing uncertainties for ERF in their Dec 14 table, 5 differ significantly (at 10 %) from 1.

I am struck by the difference between their (large) single - forcing uncertainties and that for the aggregate historical run, which is very small.

If the indirect aerosol forcing uncertainty is reduced to ± 0.4 W / m2 (i.e., a 90 % range of − 0.3 to − 1.1 W / m2) then the overall aerosol forcing uncertainty (i.e., the 90 % confidence interval) is reduced to ± 0.57 W / m2.

Ignorance of the global dust burden corresponds to a forcing uncertainty of over a factor of two, with smaller uncertainties due to imprecise knowledge of particle optical properties and the particle size distribution.

One interesting point I noted (and your paper confirms) is that if you reduce the forcing uncertainty from the IPCC level, but don't change the IPCC's best estimate of forcing, the most probable value of ECS increases very slightly, but the high sensitivity tail (eg total probability for sensitivity above 3.5 C per doubling) almost disappears.

Forcing uncertainties, particularly for aerosols, are the biggest issue for instrumental observation based TCR and ECS estimates.

If the forcing uncertainty could be reduced by 1/2, most of the model diagnosed sensitivity values would (I think) be clearly much too high.

We are averse to the idea that climate models, which have gross and well - documented deficiencies in their representation of aerosol — cloud interactions (cf. Boucher et al. 2013), provide a meaningful quantification of forcing uncertainty.

The study also noted that, consistent with Lindzen's claims about the aerosol forcing uncertainty, there is «at least a fourfold uncertainty in the aerosol forcing effect.»

Sorry, but that aerosol forcing uncertainty is the same in the Lewis, Otto, etc. studies.

States that, instead, one has to consider additional factors such as internal variability, the tuning of the model, observational uncertainty, the temporal change in dominant processes or the uncertainty in the forcing