Sentences with phrase «good estimate of sensitivity»

But you can get a good estimate of sensitivity by remembering that if interest rates change by 1 percentage point, a bond's price will change in the opposite direction by about 1 percent for each year until maturity.

He actually has published his view that (admittedly I am paraphrasing) climate as a phenomenon is entirely immune to science, and «therefore» the best estimate of sensitivity is that there isn't one.

«Today's best estimate of the sensitivity (between 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit and 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit) is no different, and no more certain, than it was 30 years ago.

3C of warming in the lower troposphere per doubling of CO2 will remain the best estimate of sensitivity, but most the energy is still going into the oceans.

In an essay published this week, President Barack Obama's former climate advisor Steven Koonin said today's best estimate of the sensitivity was no different, and no more certain, than it was 30 years ago despite billions of dollars having been spent.

A better estimate of sensitivity is the holy grail of climate research, but it is time to «call off the quest», according to a commentary published alongside the paper.

Not exact matches

When Otto calculated the climate sensitivity from his data, he found it was about 2 °C — with a range of 0.9 to 5 °C — well below the IPCC's best estimate of 3 °C.

«Our estimates of climate sensitivity lie well within the range of 1.5 to 4.5 ºC increase per CO2 doubling summarised in the latest IPCC report.

«My view on this is that the research needs to broaden out to have more of a focus on variability more generally so that a) we can predict the next few years better b) we can refine our estimates of the sensitivity of the climate system to increases in greenhouse gas concentrations.»

Well while they are «dialing back» their estimate of «Climate Sensitivity», that legacy of presumably the late Dr Stephen Schneider, they might also consider the claim that: -

The NGN article itself gives a good explanation of climate sensitivity and the various studies and estimates of it, and does quote Michael Schlesinger of the University of Illinois saying that Hegerl's result «means climate sensitivity is larger than we thought for 30 years, so the problem is worse than we thought.

Note that the old GISS model had a climate sensitivity that was a little higher (4.2 ºC for a doubling of CO2) than the best estimate (~ 3ºC) and as stated in previous years, the actual forcings that occurred are not the same as those used in the different scenarios.

«the long fat tail that is characteristic of all recent estimates of climate sensitivity simply disappears, with an upper 95 % probability limit... easily shown to lie close to 4 °C, and certainly well below 6 °C.»

A combination of circumstances makes model - based sensitivity estimates of distant times and different climates hard to do, but at least we are getting a good education about it.

So, what's the current best estimate of the ocean temperature sensitivity?

It bears noting that even if the SEA mean estimate were correct, it still lies well above the ever - more implausible estimates of those that wish the climate sensitivity were negligible.

There are two recent papers on paleo constraints: the already mentioned PALAEOSENS (2012) paper which gives a good survey of existing estimates from paleo - climate and the hierarchy of different definitions of sensitivity.

Wigley et al. (2005a) find that the lower boundary and best estimate obtained by comparing observed and simulated responses to major eruptions in the 20th century are consistent with the TAR range of 1.5 °C to 4.5 °C, and that the response to the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo suggests a best fit sensitivity of 3.0 °C and an upper 95 % limit of 5.2 °C.

The Schmittner et al. analysis marks the insensitive end of the spectrum of climate sensitivity estimates based on LGM data, in large measure because it used a data set and a weighting that may well be biased toward insufficient cooling.

A doubling of CO2 from 300 ppm in 1880 to 600 ppm in 2100 has a best estimate of 1.8 degrees (scenario B1) or about 2.3 degrees warming since 1880, which happens to be precisely the sensitivity figure given by Schmittner et al..

This is of first importance for better estimates of the climate sensitivity.

A best estimate of climate sensitivity close to 3 °C for doubled CO2 has been inferred from paleoclimate data [51]--[52].

And while estimates vary, another 6 percent of people may have determinable gluten sensitivities, and they should be careful around gluten as well.

The NGN article itself gives a good explanation of climate sensitivity and the various studies and estimates of it, and does quote Michael Schlesinger of the University of Illinois saying that Hegerl's result «means climate sensitivity is larger than we thought for 30 years, so the problem is worse than we thought.

Dan has yet to acknowledged is that the fossil record clearly shows that the best value of the known feedbacks, whatever their «exact» values may be, are included in the IPCC's approximate estimate of the climate sensitivity, and that this is strongly supported by the GCMs.

This is also a good recent presentation of the various estimates of climate sensitivity and of the amount of uncertainty associated with them — found by doing a Google image search on the terms:

The obvious answer (from someone who is indeed receptive to arguments for lower - than - consensus climate sensitivities) is that it was on a par with recent hot years because temperatures at US latitudes of the globe really weren't as much cooler in the 1930s / 1940s (compared to the present) than GISS / Hadley's best estimates (from often sketchy global coverage) suggest.

Temperature and CO2 are scaled relative to each other according to the physically expected CO2 effect on climate (i.e. the best estimate of transient climate sensitivity).

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.

[Response: I looked into what you could change in the model that would have done better (there is no such thing as a RIGHT / WRONG distinction — only gradations of skill), and I estimated that a model with a sensitivity of ~ 3 deg C / 2xCO2 give the observed forcings would have had higher skill.

Do you think that in the same way that the Solanki et al paper on solar sunspot reconstructions had a specific statement that their results did not contradict ideas of strong greenhouse warming in recent decades, this (the fact that climate sensitivity projections are not best estimates of possible future actual temperature increases) should be clearly noted in media releases put out by scientists when reporting climate sensitivity studies?

I think that the vast majority of lay readers who read the headlines and the text of stories on climate sensitivity do not know this and they simply presume that the scientists concerned are talking about their absolute best estimates of the possible temperature increases which may be faced.

As stated last year, the Scenario B in that paper is running a little high compared with the actual forcings growth (by about 10 %)(and high compared to A1B), and the old GISS model had a climate sensitivity that was a little higher (4.2 ºC for a doubling of CO2) than the best estimate (~ 3ºC).

The best estimates of climate sensitivity (around 3 deg.C per doubling of CO2) indicate that that's too much — in agreement with the conclusion from the model - data comparison.

while the «best estimate of climate sensitivity is 3.3 K».

In particular, Annan and Hargreaves (2006) used a Bayesian statistical approach that combines information from both 20th century observations and from last glacial maximum data to produce an estimate of climate sensitivity that is much better constrained than by either set of observations alone (see our post on this, here).

Would it not be more appropriate to rerun the models over the same time span that Hansen ran them, using current best estimates of parameters (such as sensitivity to CO2 doubling) and see what those predict?

The IPCC range, on the other hand, encompasses the overall uncertainty across a very large number of studies, using different methods all with their own potential biases and problems (e.g., resulting from biases in proxy data used as constraints on past temperature changes, etc.) There is a number of single studies on climate sensitivity that have statistical uncertainties as small as Cox et al., yet different best estimates — some higher than the classic 3 °C, some lower.

In the final report from CLIMSENS Berntsen et al has calculated their best estimate of climate sensitivity to be 1.9 °C.

Even the conventional notion of ECS involving the short - term (Charney) feedbacks doesn't represent an equilibrium result, which is better represented by «Earth System Sensitivity» estimates.

Here as with CO2 sensitivity, most of the uncertainty is on the high - side of the best guess, but we are mainly concerned with the best estimate.

What's new is that several recent papers have offered best estimates for climate sensitivity that are below four degrees Fahrenheit, rather than the previous best estimate of just above five degrees, and they have also suggested that the highest estimates are pretty implausible.

But 3,2 °C is the best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity (that is when the runs of models consider all the feedbacks).

What I still miss is, for climate sensitivity at 2xCO2 (540 ppm) we're discussing here, how you «jump» from a best estimate of 3 °C to 6 °C.

The 2,1 - 4,4 °C range of IPCC 2007 (with 3 °C as best estimate) is equilibrium (long term) sensitivity.

I tend to believe that including the recent years will, indeed, lower the best estimate of climate sensitivity and, hopefully, allow for a more reliable upper limit.

But they don't seem to provide informative enough data to enable a well constrained estimate of climate sensitivity to be obtained.

(ppm) Year of Peak Emissions Percent Change in global emissions Global average temperature increase above pre-industrial at equilibrium, using «best estimate» climate sensitivity CO 2 concentration at stabilization (2010 = 388 ppm) CO 2 - eq.

These values have been estimated using relatively simple climate models (one low - resolution AOGCM and several EMICs based on the best estimate of 3 °C climate sensitivity) and do not include contributions from melting ice sheets, glaciers and ice caps.

The right - hand panel shows ranges of global average temperature change above pre-industrial, using (i) «best estimate» climate sensitivity of 3 °C (black line in middle of shaded area), (ii) upper bound of likely range of climate sensitivity of 4.5 °C (red line at top of shaded area)(iii) lower bound of likely range of climate sensitivity of 2 °C (blue line at bottom of shaded area).