Sentences with phrase «in global climate sensitivity»

It is not known to what extent these differences in land - surface response translate into differences in global climate sensitivity (see Chapter 8, Section 8.5.4.3) although the uncertainty associated with the land - surface response must be smaller than the uncertainty associated with clouds (Lofgren, 1995).

Both issues touch on the issue of uncertainty, in particular, the uncertainty in the global climate sensitivity.

The variation in global climate sensitivity among GCMs is largely attributable to differences in cloud feedbacks, and feedbacks of low - level clouds in particular.

Not exact matches

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

That uncertainty is represented in the latest crop of global climate models, which assume a climate sensitivity of anywhere from about 3 to 8 degrees F.

Isaac Held, a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration climate scientist, said he agreed with the researchers about the «the importance of getting the ice - liquid ratio in mixed - phase clouds right,» but he doesn't agree that global climate models generally underestimate climate sensitivity.

Even if we could determine a «safe» level of interference in the climate system, the sensitivity of global mean temperature to increasing atmospheric CO2 is known perhaps only to a factor of three or less.

2) A better ability to constrain climate sensitivity from the past century's data 3) It will presumably be anticorrelated with year to year variations in global surface temperature that we see, especially from El Ninos and La Ninas, which will be nice whenever we have a cool year and the deniers cry out «global warming stopped!».

The «equilibrium» sensitivity of the global surface temperature to solar irradiance variations, which is calculated simply by dividing the absolute temperature on the earth's surface (288K) by the solar constant (1365Wm - 2), is based on the assumption that the climate response is linear in the whole temperature band starting at the zero point.

The climate sensitivity classically defined is the response of global mean temperature to a forcing once all the «fast feedbacks» have occurred (atmospheric temperatures, clouds, water vapour, winds, snow, sea ice etc.), but before any of the «slow» feedbacks have kicked in (ice sheets, vegetation, carbon cycle etc.).

Themes: Aerosols, Arctic and Antarctic climate, Atmospheric Science, Climate modelling, Climate sensitivity, Extreme events, Global warming, Greenhouse gases, Mitigation of Climate Change, Present - day observations, Oceans, Paleo - climate, Responses to common contrarian arguments, The Practice of Science, Solar forcing, Projections of future climate, Climate in the media, Meeting Reports, Miscellclimate, Atmospheric Science, Climate modelling, Climate sensitivity, Extreme events, Global warming, Greenhouse gases, Mitigation of Climate Change, Present - day observations, Oceans, Paleo - climate, Responses to common contrarian arguments, The Practice of Science, Solar forcing, Projections of future climate, Climate in the media, Meeting Reports, MiscellClimate modelling, Climate sensitivity, Extreme events, Global warming, Greenhouse gases, Mitigation of Climate Change, Present - day observations, Oceans, Paleo - climate, Responses to common contrarian arguments, The Practice of Science, Solar forcing, Projections of future climate, Climate in the media, Meeting Reports, MiscellClimate sensitivity, Extreme events, Global warming, Greenhouse gases, Mitigation of Climate Change, Present - day observations, Oceans, Paleo - climate, Responses to common contrarian arguments, The Practice of Science, Solar forcing, Projections of future climate, Climate in the media, Meeting Reports, MiscellClimate Change, Present - day observations, Oceans, Paleo - climate, Responses to common contrarian arguments, The Practice of Science, Solar forcing, Projections of future climate, Climate in the media, Meeting Reports, Miscellclimate, Responses to common contrarian arguments, The Practice of Science, Solar forcing, Projections of future climate, Climate in the media, Meeting Reports, Miscellclimate, Climate in the media, Meeting Reports, MiscellClimate in the media, Meeting Reports, Miscellaneous.

And I want to know what is the maximum climate sensitivity so I can bring in global policies to prevent that happening.

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.»

Stowasser, M., K. Hamilton, and G.J. Boer, 2006: Local and global climate feedbacks in models with differing climate sensitivity.

Some global warming «skeptics» argue that the Earth's climate sensitivity is so low that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in a surface temperature change on the order of 1 °C or less, and that therefore global warming is nothing to worry about.

The regional climate feedbacks formulation reveals fundamental biases in a widely - used method for diagnosing climate sensitivity, feedbacks and radiative forcing — the regression of the global top - of - atmosphere radiation flux on global surface temperature.

Here's an interesting paper that is referenced in some of the listed publications: Meraner et al. 2013, Robust increase in equilibrium climate sensitivity under global warming, GRL https://hal.inria.fr/hal-01099395/document

Liu, J., et al., 2003: Sensitivity of sea ice to physical parameterizations in the GISS global climate model.

The series of reports concludes: «The recent pause in global surface temperature rise does not invalidate previous estimates of climate sensitivity.

This empirical fast - feedback climate sensitivity allows water vapor, clouds, aerosols, sea ice, and all other fast feedbacks that exist in the real world to respond naturally to global climate change.

There have been quite a number of papers published in recent years concerning «emergent constraints» on equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) in comprehensive global climate models (GCMs), of both the current (CMIP5) and previous (CMIP3) generations.

Regarding your second comment, in point of fact temperature increase is linear with logarithmically increasing CO2: climate sensitivity, you may recall, measures global mean surface temperature increase per doubling of atmospheric concentration of CO2.

Pinning a number on how much global temperature rises in response to a doubling of carbon dioxide — known as the climate sensitivity — is a big question in climate science as it helps more accurately predict how much warming we'll see in future.

Then, if you scale the Antarctic temperature change to a global temperature change, then the global climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 becomes 2 - 3 degrees C, perfectly in line with the climate sensitivity given by IPCC (and known from Arrhenius's calculations more than 100 years ago).

Abstract:» The sensitivity of global climate with respect to forcing is generally described in terms of the global climate feedback — the global radiative response per degree of global annual mean surface temperature change.

The emission limit depends on climate sensitivity, but central estimates [12]--[13], including those in the upcoming Fifth Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [14], are that a 2 °C global warming limit implies a cumulative carbon emissions limit of the order of 10climate sensitivity, but central estimates [12]--[13], including those in the upcoming Fifth Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [14], are that a 2 °C global warming limit implies a cumulative carbon emissions limit of the order of 10Climate Change [14], are that a 2 °C global warming limit implies a cumulative carbon emissions limit of the order of 1000 GtC.

First let's define the «equilibrium climate sensitivity» as the «equilibrium change in global mean surface temperature following a doubling of the atmospheric (equivalent) CO2 concentration.

The warming effect of CO2 on climate is physically well - understood, and the sensitivity of global temperature to CO2 is independently confirmed by paleoclimatic data, see e.g. Rohling et al. 2012 or the brand - new paper by Friedrich et al. 2016 (here is a nice write - up on this paper from Peter Hannam in the Sydney Morning Herald).

The climate sensitivity classically defined is the response of global mean temperature to a forcing once all the «fast feedbacks» have occurred (atmospheric temperatures, clouds, water vapour, winds, snow, sea ice etc.), but before any of the «slow» feedbacks have kicked in (ice sheets, vegetation, carbon cycle etc.).

Unfortunately for policymakers and the public, while the basic science pointing to a rising human influence on climate is clear, many of the most important questions will remain surrounded by deep complexity and uncertainty for a long time to come: the pace at which seas will rise, the extent of warming from a certain buildup of greenhouse gases (climate sensitivity), the impact on hurricanes, the particular effects in particular places (what global warming means for Addis Ababa or Atlanta).

And I want to know what is the maximum climate sensitivity so I can bring in global policies to prevent that happening.

Arctic sea ice is a key indicator of global climate change because of its sensitivity to warming and its role in amplifying climate change through the SIAF.

This is similar to how the denier claims of no global warming, or of no anthropogenic influence upon warming, or of low climate sensitivity, depend on all observational data being wrong in the same direction.

[Response: I suspect another common confusion here: the abrupt glacial climate events (you mention the Younger Dryas, but there's also the Dansgaard - Oeschger events and Heinrich events) are probably not big changes in global mean temperature, and therefore do not need to be forced by any global mean forcing like CO2, nor tell us anything about the climate sensitivity to such a global forcing.

The addition says many climate models typically look at short term, rapid factors when calculating the Earth's climate sensitivity, which is defined as the average global temperature increase brought about by a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere.

2) A better ability to constrain climate sensitivity from the past century's data 3) It will presumably be anticorrelated with year to year variations in global surface temperature that we see, especially from El Ninos and La Ninas, which will be nice whenever we have a cool year and the deniers cry out «global warming stopped!».

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.

In # 78 Chris wrote:... «But with every year that the global temperature fails to break new ground (say +0.50 on the Hadley measure) the more receptive I will be to arguments for lower - than - consensus climate sensitivities».

(This large uncertainty essentially due to the uncertainty in the aerosol forcing; it is also the main reason why the magnitude of global dimming has little or no implication for climate sensitivity).

Abstract:» The sensitivity of global climate with respect to forcing is generally described in terms of the global climate feedback — the global radiative response per degree of global annual mean surface temperature change.

Global temperature change is about half that in Antarctica, so this equilibrium global climate sensitivity is 1.5 C (Wm ^ -2) ^ -1, double the fast - feedback (Charney) sensitGlobal temperature change is about half that in Antarctica, so this equilibrium global climate sensitivity is 1.5 C (Wm ^ -2) ^ -1, double the fast - feedback (Charney) sensitglobal climate sensitivity is 1.5 C (Wm ^ -2) ^ -1, double the fast - feedback (Charney) sensitivity.

The approximately 20 - year lag (between atmospheric CO2 concentration change and reaching equilibrium temperature) is an emerging property (just like sensitivity) of the global climate system in the GCM models used in the paper I linked to above, if I understood it correctly.

The efficacy of a forcing is the climate sensitivity (in terms of global average surface temperature change per unit global average RF) of that forcing relative to a standard type of forcing.

In this case the CO2 concentration is instantaneously quadrupled and kept constant for 150 years of simulation, and both equilibrium climate sensitivity and RF are diagnosed from a linear fit of perturbations in global mean surface temperature to the instantaneous radiative imbalance at the TOIn this case the CO2 concentration is instantaneously quadrupled and kept constant for 150 years of simulation, and both equilibrium climate sensitivity and RF are diagnosed from a linear fit of perturbations in global mean surface temperature to the instantaneous radiative imbalance at the TOin global mean surface temperature to the instantaneous radiative imbalance at the TOA.

(PS we are considering the climate sensitivity to be in terms of changes in global - time average surface temperature per unit global - time average radiative forcing, though one could also define other sensitivities for other measures of climate).

I sincerely hope that you are not serious in maintaining the following: The peak warming is linearly proportional to the cumulative carbon emitted It doesn't matter much how rapidly the carbon is emitted The warming you get when you stop emitting carbon is what you are stuck with for the next thousand years The climate recovers only slightly over the next ten thousand years At the mid-range of IPCC climate sensitivity, a trillion tonnes cumulative carbon gives you about 2C global mean warming above the pre-industrial temperature.

June 18, 5:20 p.m. Updated The climatologist Isaac Held, quoted in an informative piece in The New Republic on recent global temperatures and climate sensitivity, said this:

Then, if you scale the Antarctic temperature change to a global temperature change, then the global climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 becomes 2 - 3 degrees C, perfectly in line with the climate sensitivity given by IPCC (and known from Arrhenius's calculations more than 100 years ago).

The term «climate sensitivity» refers to the steady - state increase in the global annual mean surface air temperature associated with a given global mean radiative forcing.

Over very long time periods such that the carbon cycle is in equilibrium with the climate, one gets a sensitivity to global temperature of about 20 ppm CO2 / deg C, or 75 ppb CH4 / deg C. On shorter timescales, the sensitivity for CO2 must be less (since there is no time for the deep ocean to come into balance), and variations over the last 1000 years or so (which are less than 10 ppm), indicate that even if Moberg is correct, the maximum sensitivity is around 15 ppm CO2 / deg C. CH4 reacts faster, but even for short term excursions (such as the 8.2 kyr event) has a similar sensitivity.