Sentences with phrase «found equilibrium climate»

A widely noted 2013 study that compared the historical record of temperatures and CO2 levels since1860 found an Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS, now the preferred term) at the lower end of the range, ruling out 3 °C sensitivity.

Writing at the Cato Institute, Michaels wrote that the paper found equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) would be roughly half that found by mainstream scientific sources like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Consensus science, despite The Economist misinforming us to the contrary, finds Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity to be about 3 degrees Celsius for each doubling of CO2.

Not exact matches

Typically, this will continue slowly until the glacier finds equilibrium with several factors: its own mass, the shape of the fjord, and lastly, the climate.

Using global climate models and NASA satellite observations of Earth's energy budget from the last 15 years, the study finds that a warming Earth is able to restore its temperature equilibrium through complex and seemingly paradoxical changes in the atmosphere and the way radiative heat is transported.

The assumption that these climate shifts between quasi equilibrium states cancel out over less than centennial to millennial scales is astonishingly ill founded.

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.

One thing to remember is that the «equilibrium» temperature of the Earth is roughly 15,700,000 K. I arrived at this number using climate science physics, one simply calculates the «equilibrium» position of the planet Earth, and one finds that it should be in the center of the solar system, not orbiting it, and as we all know there is a star at the center with an average internal temperature of 15,700,000 K

Recall that 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 find that it is very unlikely to be above 4.5 C in the context of a Bayesian analysis, as a result of prior selection and expert judgment.

The BEST team also found that the observed warming is consistent with an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 3.1 ± 0.3 °C for CO2 doubling, in line with the IPCC climate sensitivity range, and demonstrates once again that contrary to the persistent claims of Richard Lindzen, the Earth has warmed as much as we expect given a relatively high climate sensitivity.

The only thing I find noteworthy is that it further reinforces the point that there is no scientific consensus on a best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity, which is entirely in agreement with the IPCC's statement in AR5 WG1 SPM: «No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.»

First, they conclude that there is less uncertainty in TCR than in Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS), which I suggest supports the proposition that they found considerable uncertainty in the latter.

A few people above referenced the idea that F&G 06 studied a short period and therefore must have found only the «transient climate response», not the equilibrium sensitivity.

Most commonly I find the assumption that the radiative balance and equilibrium calculations (ignoring non-radiative transfer) are directly relevant to the dynamic climate, to at least the first significant figure and at a short time frame.

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.

For example in the case of Knutti et al. (2006), a strong relationship between current behaviour and equilibrium climate sensitivity, that is found to hold across a single model ensemble, has no skill in predicting the climate sensitivity of the members of the CMIP3 ensemble.

Currently available proxy data are equivocal concerning a possible increase in the intensity of the meridional overturning cell for either transient or equilibrium climate states during the Pliocene, although an increase would contrast with the North Atlantic transient deep - water production decreases that are found in most coupled model simulations for the 21st century (see Chapter 10).

Webb et al. (2006), investigating a selection of the slab versions of models in Table 8.1, found that differences in feedbacks contribute almost three times more to the range in equilibrium climate sensitivity estimates than differences in the models» radiative forcings (the spread of models» forcing is discussed in Section 10.2).

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.

We assume that Chylek (2008) is right to find transient and equilibrium climate sensitivity near - identical; that allof the warming from 1980 - 2005 was anthropogenic; that the IPCC's values for forcings and feedbacks are correct; and, in line 2, that McKitrick is right that the insufficiently - corrected heat - island effect of rapid urbanization since 1980 has artificially doubled the true rate of temperature increase in the major global datasets.