Sentences with phrase «higher global climate sensitivity»

Rather, their analysis shows that if you compare the LGM land cooling with the model land cooling, then the model that fits the land best has much higher GLOBAL climate sensitivity than you get for best fit if you use ocean data.

Not exact matches

«The research shows that climate sensitivity was higher during the past global, warm climate than in the current climate.

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.»

This empirical climate sensitivity is generally consistent with that of global climate models [1], but the empirical approach makes the inferred high sensitivity more certain and the quantitative evaluation more precise.

Being off by 50 % means that global warming is something we should be concerned about and the climate sensitivity assumptions are just a little high.

As shown in Figure 2, the IPCC FAR ran simulations using models with climate sensitivities (the total amount of global surface warming in response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2, including amplifying and dampening feedbacks) correspoding to 1.5 °C (low), 2.5 °C (best), and 4.5 °C (high).

Second, we compared projections centered 80 years from now (2070 — 2099) from two global climate models with higher and lower sensitivities to atmospheric greenhouse gas levels.

As components of the global cryosphere, mountain glaciers are known for their high sensitivity to climate change.

Dear Willis, the climate sensitivity is high on your mind and I remember that at a last years thread, you tried to grasp the matter, which you now have turned into the global thermostatic approach.

This assumption is based on climate model results that gave high climate sensitivity for doubling of CO2 by smoothing out all the oscillation in GMST before the 1970s and leaving untouched the warming phase of the oscillation since then and calling it man - made global warming as shown below.

James Annan, of Frontier Research For Global Change, a prominent «warmist», recently said high estimates for climate sensitivity now look «increasingly untenable», with the true figure likely to be about half of the IPCC prediction in its last report in 2007.

Which forms the basis for the IPCC claim of high climate sensitivity (mean value of 3.2 C), resulting in significant global warming (up to 6.4 C warming by 2100), «extreme high sea levels», increased «heat waves», increased «heavy rains» and floods, increased «droughts», increased «intense tropical cyclones» — which, in turn, lead to crop failures, disappearance of glaciers now supplying drinking water to millions, increased vector borne diseases, etc. (for short, potentially catastrophic AGW — or «CAGW»).

The high climate sensitivity programmed into the IPCC's climate models is entirely dependent of this hotspot of positive feedback - with the hotspot, climate models predict a scary global warming range that spans from 2 °C to 6 °C.

I think James» point about the last decade is not that global warming has stopped (implying low or zero climate sensitivity) but that it has not accelerated to the extent that it would have if climate sensitivity were very high (above, say, 4).

In fact, most global warming catastrophists believe the climate sensitivity is at least 3ºC per doubling, and many use estimates as high as 5ºC or 6ºC.

This empirical climate sensitivity is generally consistent with that of global climate models [1], but the empirical approach makes the inferred high sensitivity more certain and the quantitative evaluation more precise.

In other words, the reason Hansen's global temperature projections were too high was primarily because his climate model had a climate sensitivity that was too high.

About a year before, Epstein had also written in Forbes claiming that there was a consensus «that in the last 15 + years there has been no significant global warming, despite record, accelerating CO2 emissions, and the climate models based on high sensitivity failed to predict this.»

The results open the possibility that recent climate sensitivity estimates from global observations and [intermediate complexity models] are systematically considerably lower or higher than the truth, since they are typically based on the same realization of climate variability.»

The IPCC FAR ran simulations using models with climate sensitivities (the total amount of global surface warming in response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2, including amplifying and dampening feedbacks) of 1.5 °C (low), 2.5 °C (best), and 4.5 °C (high) for doubled CO2 (Figure 1).

This noble enterprise has resulted in fame, a Nobel Prize, moral and political power, and funding to scientists and science departments worldwide whose work supports the thesis of high climate sensitivity and likely castastrophic global catastrophic global warming.

Figure 3: Global mean temperature measurements (black) and projections based on an IPCC scenario with high emissions (A2) for a climate sensitivity parameter of 5 °C (upper red) and 2 °C (upper blue).

Interestingly, Penner et al. find that whether the climate sensitivity parameter is on the low or high end, reducing anthropogenic emissions of the short - lived warming pollutants would achieve a significant reduction in global warming over the next 50 - 100 years.

Low sensitivity likely The very high complexity of IPCC Global Climate Models with Armstrong's findings infer that the IPCC's > 95 % confidence in > 50 % anthropogenic is «an illusion».

Much of the recent discussion of climate sensitivity in online forums and in peer - reviewed literature focuses on two areas: cutting off the so - called «long tail» of low probability \ high climate sensitivities (e.g., above 6 C or so), and reconciling the recent slowdown in observed surface warming with predictions from global climate models.

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.

Additionally, the climate sensitivity in Hansen's 1988 model (4.2 °C global warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2) was a bit higher than today's best estimate (3 °C warming for CO2 doubling).

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

It produces what appears to be a high total feedback (low climate sensitivity), but not one which we can unequivocally extend to the global system under a longer - term distributed forcing.

«James Annan, of Frontier Research For Global Change, a prominent «warmist», recently said high estimates for climate sensitivity now look «increasingly untenable»,» but the second half questionable:»... with the true figure likely to be about half of the IPCC prediction in its last report in 2007.»

The uncertainty in climate sensitivity itself is in my opinion a good reason to demand reductions of global GHG emissions, because the possibility of «a dangerous interference with the climate system» can not be ruled out with high confidence.

If the greenhouse effect played such a small role [edit], there should be an ENORMOUS climate sensitivity to «natural factors», which in turn strongly suggests there should be a much higher variability in global temperatures on a year - to - year basis.