Sentences with phrase «if climate sensitivity»

Your own curve (Fig. 1c) shows less warming today than the CO2 population would imply, if your climate sensitivity were correct.»

Even if climate sensitivity were 0.5 C (which is generally considered to be of no concern) we would still be making a significant contribution to the small observed «warming.»

Stipulating, of course, that adaptation might be a more cost - effective private policy for you, even if climate sensitivity ends up to be above the modal estimate.

Others say that we need to act even if climate sensitivity lies at the low end of the scale, since coastal areas would still be threatened by rising seas, for example.

However I can't see what aspect would contradict the idea that one could probably define a maximum CO2 climate sensitivity by appplying the PCF model to past temperatures, except maybe if the climate sensitivity itself would be non-linear?

I am also interested in how long is required for the surface temp to «achieve» 95 % of the ECS change: e.g. if climate sensitivity is 2K, how much time is required for the surface temp to increase by 1.9 K; and then how much longer for the deep oceans to increase by 1.9 K (or whatever 95 % of the projected increase in deep ocean temperature works out to.)

The only way that I can see that the climate could be as warm as today (as «Skeptics» claim) is if climate sensitivity (CS) was very high, but the «skeptics» claim that CS is very low — a clear contradiction.

If the climate sensitivity to CO2 is near the lower edge of the estimates, the temperature rise could be manageable.

If climate sensitivity were large such reversals in temperature, in direct contradiction to the direction of CO2, would be impossible.

Of course this is a valid argument if climate sensitivity to CO2 is high, But.

Even if climate sensitivity is on the lower end, if we don't get our emissions under control, we will still see a dangerous amount of global warming (more details on this to come in a future blog post).

By the way Kramm has recently shown that if the climate sensitivity to 2x CO2 is as small as your value then it can not be discerned within the error of calculating any average annual temperature and if something can't be observed then I wonder about its existence

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).

If climate sensitivity is, say, 3 degrees C then that means that the CO2 in 1970 of 326 ppm must double to 652 ppm for the temperature anomaly to rise by 3 degrees.

If climate sensitivity is lower, then of course, we have some time to wait until replacement technologies mature.

It would be very convenient if climate sensitivity was that easy to calculate but if that were so I think the scientific community would have cottoned on by now.

Or if climate sensitivity to CO2 is worse than we thought?

If the climate sensitivity is a function of temperature, then the current discussion about the best estimate of climate sensitivity is misdirected.

If climate sensitivity is low enough, anthropogenic vs natural variation is fairly irrelevant.

With a climate sensitivity of roughly 1 from «settled» CO2 science, some evidence for natural shifts in global climate of 0.5 - 1.0 degK, and a fair amount of uncertainty in feedbacks, my Italian flag (based on physics) will probably be mostly white if climate sensitivity is > 2.5.

One problem is that many discussants speak as if climate sensitivity were an input to the climate models which is traded off against anthropogenic aerosol forcing which is another input to get the «right answer.»

If climate sensitivity were zero the temperature of the earth would stay the same when the sun went down.

If climate sensitivity is a variable and not a constant what can we really learn from paleo data other than what the climate sensitivity was, on average, over an extended period of time?

According to the prevailing theory and equation, if the climate sensitivity is high, a small forcing change is said to cause a larger temperature change, and vice versa.

Duh, if climate sensitivity is 11F per doubling of CO2 or whatever, we certainly have a big problem.

Even if climate sensitivity were 10 degrees / doubling of CO2, the radiative imbalance would eventually become zero.

(If climate sensitivity turns out to be low, that might buy us an extra decade or so.)

Even then if climate sensitivity is high then it is time to stop emitting CO2.

The timing and level of mitigation to reach a given temperature stabilisation level is earlier and more stringent if climate sensitivity is high than if it is low.

If climate sensitivity is too high or low in a particular model, then the response to CO2 is scaled up or down when making the attribution calculation (such scalings are shown here).

In 1959, professor Edward Ney proposed that if climate sensitivity were related to changes in density of tropospheric ions, it would indicate a solar climate link.

The point to realise is that if the climate sensitivity is 3C for x 2.0 CO2 then the fact that the sun has added a further 0.5 C will not make much difference.

Even if climate sensitivity is somewhat less than the IPCC's median value of about 3 degrees Celsius, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are increasing exponentially, so a smaller value merely buys an extra decade or two until the same amount of warming is reached.

Carbon capping isn't even going to save the earth if climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide has been exaggerated.

So, if climate sensitivity is based on physics, then all forcings retain the same ratios.

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?

JB @ 83, You tell us «If climate sensitivity is low (and the evidence is increasingly supporting that conclusion), we have very little to worry about.»

If climate sensitivity is low (and the evidence is increasingly supporting that conclusion), we have very little to worry about.

What would the answers to the above have been if the climate sensitivity was indeed 3degC?

In other words, if climate sensitivity is toward the low end, 2 K is more dangerous than we currently give it credit for, and arguments for low risk because of low sensitivity are less valid because that means that more ecological changes occur for a given temperature change than currently thought.

If the climate sensitivity lies within the bounds considered in IPCC TAR (which I would argue is still the case), the answer is no.

If climate sensitivity was much lower than most models predict then adaptation would be a logical political response.

If climate sensitivity and thermal inertia are strongly connected, then that implies two extreme possibilities since the recent rate of warming is currently near the middle of the range:

Since warming is proportional to cumulative carbon, if the climate sensitivity were really as low as Schmittner et al. estimate, then another 500 GT would take us to the same risk level, some 11 years later.

I am also interested in how long is required for the surface temp to «achieve» 95 % of the ECS change: e.g. if climate sensitivity is 2K, how much time is required for the surface temp to increase by 1.9 K; and then how much longer for the deep oceans to increase by 1.9 K (or whatever 95 % of the projected increase in deep ocean temperature works out to.)

In other words, if climate sensitivity is toward the low end, 2 K is more dangerous than we currently give it credit for, and arguments for low risk because of low sensitivity are less valid because that means that more ecological changes occur for a given temperature change than currently thought.

If the climate sensitivity is low, for example due to increasing low - lying cloud cover reflecting more sunlight as a response to global warming, then how can these large past climate changes be explained?

Of course even if Climate Sensitivity is say 2degC that will not result in a rise of 2 degC from today's temperature level but rather a rise of 2 degC from pre-industrial levels.

Not exact matches

«If we are lucky and the climate sensitivity is at the low end, and we have a strong agreement in 2015, then I think we stand a chance to limit climate change to 2 °C,» says Corinne Le Quéré of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research in Norwiclimate sensitivity is at the low end, and we have a strong agreement in 2015, then I think we stand a chance to limit climate change to 2 °C,» says Corinne Le Quéré of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research in Norwiclimate change to 2 °C,» says Corinne Le Quéré of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research in NorwiClimate Change Research in Norwich, UK.

«If the true climate sensitivity really is as high as 5 degrees C -LSB-(9 degrees F)-RSB-, the only way our descendants will find that out is if they stubbornly hold greenhouse gas concentrations constant for centuries at our target stabilization level.&raquIf the true climate sensitivity really is as high as 5 degrees C -LSB-(9 degrees F)-RSB-, the only way our descendants will find that out is if they stubbornly hold greenhouse gas concentrations constant for centuries at our target stabilization level.&raquif they stubbornly hold greenhouse gas concentrations constant for centuries at our target stabilization level.»