Sentences with phrase «high equilibrium climate sensitivity»

A proposition of this type is a premise to the IPCC's argument for the possibility of a catastrophically high equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) and this argument must be regarded as unproved in view of the falsity of this premise.

Then, you would have the global climate models that offer a higher equilibrium climate sensitivity and longer time constants.

Not exact matches

Beyond equilibrium climate sensitivity -LSB-...] Newer metrics relating global warming directly to the total emitted CO2 show that in order to keep warming to within 2 °C, future CO2 emissions have to remain strongly limited, irrespective of climate sensitivity being at the high or low end.»

Moreover, the timeframe over which the planet comes to equilibrium increases with higher climate sensitivity.

Then on page 9.5 we read «There is very high confidence that the primary factor contributing to the spread in equilibrium climate sensitivity continues to be the cloud feedback.

Aslo, regarding climate sensitivity a very key thing to remember, especially if sensitivity turns out to be on the high side, is that the «final» equilibrium temperature (Alexi's concerns about there being such a thing aside) calculated from climate sensitivity does not take into account carbon cycle feedbacks OR ice sheet changes.

Annan said equilibrium climate sensitivity is unlikely to be higher than 4.5 °C — there are few if any mainstream climate scientists who would disagree with this.

This sensitivity is often represented by the equilibrium climate sensitivity, but this quantity is poorly constrained with significant probabilities for high values.

This lag is known as the difference between transient climate sensitivity (TCS), which is immediate warming, and equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), which includes the lag time and can be much higher.

The figure of 1.7 C is actually for TCR (transient climate response)-- so it is still possible that ECS (equilibrium climate sensitivity) is as high as 2.5 C.

Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5 °C to 4.5 °C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1 °C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6 °C (medium confidence)(Note 16).»

Along with the corrected value of F2xCO2 being higher than the one used in the paper, and the correct comparison being with the model's effective climate sensitivity of ~ 2.0 C, this results in a higher estimate of equilibrium efficacy from Historical total forcing.

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.

Annan said equilibrium climate sensitivity is unlikely to be higher than 4.5 °C - there are few if any mainstream climate scientists who would disagree with this.

The 95 percent confidence range in this study was between about 1 and 7 °C equilibrium sensitivity, so very low and very high climate sensitivities could not be ruled out, but are relatively unlikely, based on the historical record.

Imposing a flat prior on an observable property, such as the climate feedback or transient climate response, is equivalent to imposing a highly skewed prior on the equilibrium climate sensitivity, and therefore results in narrower posterior likelihood ranges on the climate sensitivity that exclude very high sensitivities.

Thus, a prior is a possibility for which the probability is high of a low equilibrium climate sensitivity.

On the contrary, the authors stated that to show the robustness of the main conclusion of the paper — a relatively small equilibrium climate sensitivity — they deliberately adopted the regression model that gave the highest climate sensitivity.

Compared with our prior, theirs emphasizes the higher values of equilibrium climate sensitivity.

A lower ratio would yield a higher climate sensitivity estimate — for a ratio of 0.6, the range would be 2.2 — 3.8 C. TCR involves an interval of about 70 years, and so it is unlikely that a response to doubled CO2 would exceed 70 percent of the equilibrium value in an interval that short.

The temperature rise at equilibrium (known, unsurprisingly, as the «equilibrium» climate sensitivity) is higher than the transient climate sensitivity (how much higher is uncertain).

Spencer and Braswell freely admit that using their simple model is just the first step in a complicated diagnosis, but also point out that the results from simple models provide insight that should help guide the development of more complex models, and ultimately could help unravel some of the mystery as to why full climate models produce high estimates of the earth's equilibrium climate sensitivity, while estimates based in real - world observations are much lower.

Recently there have been some studies and comments by a few climate scientists that based on the slowed global surface warming over the past decade, estimates of the Earth's overall equilibrium climate sensitivity (the total amount of global surface warming in response to the increased greenhouse effect from a doubling of atmospheric CO2, including amplifying and dampening feedbacks) may be a bit too high.

[Short response: Mainstream view is that climate sensitivity (equilibrium warming for a doubling of CO2) is 1.5 to 4.5 C, though higher estimates can not be discounted.

Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5 °C to 4.5 °C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1 °C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6 °C (medium confidence).