Sentences with phrase «general climate sensitivities»

The United Nations» Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a global effort involving hundreds of climate scientists and the governments of 100 nations, projected in 2001 that, depending on the rate of greenhouse gas emissions and general climate sensitivities, the global average temperature would rise 2.5 to 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit between 1990 and 2100.

Video: Dr. Kevin Trenberth explains general climate sensitivity on Earth.

Not exact matches

Thus in summary, a change in sensitivity of one of the primary actors in climate variation has only effect for the general sensitivity of climate, if all the feedbacks are essentially similar for all primary actors involved, which is highly probably not the case...

Hourdin, F., et al., 2006: The LMDZ4 general circulation model: Climate performance and sensitivity to parameterized physics with emphasis on tropical convection.

We look to the real world and the paleo record to constrain those aspects of the climate system that have non-negligible uncertainties (most often climate sensitivities in a general sense).

(in general, whether for future projections or historical reconstructions or estimates of climate sensitivity, I tend to be sympathetic to arguments of more rather than less uncertainty because I feel like in general, models and statistical approaches are not exhaustive and it is «plausible» that additional factors could lead to either higher or lower estimates than seen with a single approach.

If Judge Alsup needs further just cause for being fed up with Watts Up, Judge Judy's latest climate sensitivity ruling in concord with Obfuscator General Lewis may provide it.

Thus in summary, a change in sensitivity of one of the primary actors in climate variation has only effect for the general sensitivity of climate, if all the feedbacks are essentially similar for all primary actors involved, which is highly probably not the case...

If climate sensitivity is higher than thought as so much evidence keeps suggesting recently, when do actually take this seriously and just stop using fossil fuels on a personal and general level?

Steve McIntyre's failed sensitivity analysis has been used by a much wider audience to dispute the Yamal hockey stick, accuse scientists of fraud and undermine the credibility of climate science in general.

Given that our best bet of climate sensitivity has remained the same (1.5 — 4.5 C) for over 30 years with all new information «pretty much cancelling out», at one point do we begin to focus this investment more on mitigation or another approaches to climate change in general?

The general picture is that current policy would have to work as intended (not a guarantee in the United States or internationally) and climate sensitivity would have to be very low to prevent exceeding the international target of 2 °C (let alone, 1.5 °C, which will be a policy and technological challenge even in a low - sensitivity world).

That would be the General Fluid Dynamics Laboratory which produced the lower «climate sensitivity» range, (Manabe) which was «averaged» with the much higher GISS estimate to produce a high end estimate that was assumed to be real science, when it was actually an average of WAGs.

This is computer model crap based on General Circulation Models that fails to predict anything and the climate sensitivity is feeded in the model even though they do nt have a clue what it is.

Climate sensitivity is defined in a general way.

«Seasonal Cycle Experiments on Climate Sensitivity Due to a Doubling of CO2 with an Atmospheric General Circulation Model Coupled to a Simple Mixed Layer Ocean Model.»

«The Sensitivity of Monsoon Climates to Orbital Parameterization Changes for 9000 Years BP: Experiments with the NCAR General Circulation Model.»

«Climate Sensitivity Due to Increased CO2: Experiments with a Coupled Atmosphere and Ocean General Circulation Model.»

In general, diversity shifts towards the coast and northwards, and the degree depends on the dispersal assumptions, emission scenarios, and the sensitivity of climate simulations.

Within this general definition, several specific forms of climate sensitivity exist that differ in terms of the types of climate feedbacks they include.

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].

Computer simulations of the climate, referred to as «general circulation models» (GCMs), can be used to assess the sensitivity of climate to changes that might result from increased greenhouse gases.

Beyond the specific issue of climate sensitivity, it raises the more general problem of optimal model complexity.

A general agreement that IF this trend continues for another «X» years despite continued increase of GHG concentrations, there will be enough evidence in the red column to seriously question the ability of the GCMs cited by IPCC: a) to correctly assess human attribution of past climate change b) to estimate climate sensitivity c) to make meaningful projections of future climate changes due to AGW

Due to computational constraints, the equilibrium climate sensitivity in a climate model is usually estimated by running an atmospheric general circulation model coupled to a mixed - layer ocean model, because equilibrium climate sensitivity is largely determined by atmospheric processes.

Pfeiffer, M. & Lohmann, G. Greenland ice sheet influence on last interglacial climate: global sensitivity studies performed with an atmosphere — ocean general circulation model.

So many estimations of climate sensitivity have now been made, involving many different methods and eras, that I have the sense that our confidence in the general range of values that has emerged is reinforced by the convergence of data.

Nevertheless, in general, Annan's comments are consistent with the body of mainstream climate science research, and most of his colleagues believe that climate sensitivity is most likely close to 3 °C surface warming in response to doubled CO2; unlikely to be more than 4.5 °C or less than 2 °C.

What counts here is it looks like the warming has been significantly over-estimated, Paper after paper is coming out with the same general conclusion, that climate sensitivity is looking much less dire.

Since climate models in general screw the «sensitivity» estimating pooch and the absolute temperature, it should be pretty obvious who should never have been involved in the debate.

IF temperatures rise by < 2 C, as appears centrally likely based on current re-estimates of climate sensitivity using improved analysis of aerosols and taking into account the pause and the general lack of tropospheric warming, then it is more likely to be more expensive to mitigate.

13.2.1 Incremental Scenarios for Sensitivity Studies 13.2.2 Analogue Scenarios 13.2.2.1 Spatial analogues 13.2.2.2 Temporal analogues 13.2.3 Scenarios Based on Outputs from Climate Models 13.2.3.1 Scenarios from General Circulation Models 13.2.3.2 Scenarios from simple climate models 13.2.4 Other Types of ScClimate Models 13.2.3.1 Scenarios from General Circulation Models 13.2.3.2 Scenarios from simple climate models 13.2.4 Other Types of Scclimate models 13.2.4 Other Types of Scenarios

And, in general, cloud changes caused by internal climate dynamics seem much more likely to lead to the Forster / Gregory 06 method over-estimating sensitivity than under - estimating it, as pointed out in the article.

My main interest is in understanding what, if anything, we can say about climate sensitivity that does not rely on General Circulation Models.

The sensitivity of NPP to climate change is especially uncertain because it depends on changing soil water availability, which varies significantly between General Circulation Models (GCMs), with some models suggesting major drying and reduced productivity in tropical ecosystems (Cox et al., 2004).

Here is the skeptical side of Abelson at a time, almost 2o years ago, when climate science in general operated on a much smaller set of data (but note that he quotes more or less the same wide range of climate sensitivity estimates that are the norm today)-- Abelson

The introduction to the debate gives a general background on the various estimates for the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) and transient climate response (TCR to a doubling of CO2 and asks these questions:

-LSB-...] «Sensitivity training directly on the battlefield» sounds like something libs would do NOAA Misrepresents Inspector General Report New report exonerates U.S. climate researchers What would you expect from this -LSB-...]

Contrary to Schlesinger's result, the majority of state - of - the - art four - dimensional «general circulation models» (GCMs)- the kind used in the Trenberth and Fasullo study - estimate the climate sensitivity is closer to 3 degrees C.

Indeed, since in general GCMs significantly overestimate aerosol forcing compared with observations, they need to embody a high climate sensitivity or they would underestimate historical warming and be consigned to the scrapheap.

Nic Lewis in the post at BishopHill does a very nice empirically based sensitivity analysis following the general methodology of the Gregory et al (2002) heat balance change derived value of the equilibrium climate sensitivity, determining a value of ECS of 1.6 - 1.7 C.

For this and other reasons, it is not possible to obtain climate sensitivity numerically using general - circulation models: for, as Akasofu (2008) has pointed out, climate sensitivity must be an input to any such model, not an output from it.

Climate responds to many internal and external factors, and understanding how it varied 1000 years ago informs us about factors that might have operated then (and perhaps about climate sensitivity in general), but little about the current mix of fClimate responds to many internal and external factors, and understanding how it varied 1000 years ago informs us about factors that might have operated then (and perhaps about climate sensitivity in general), but little about the current mix of fclimate sensitivity in general), but little about the current mix of factors.