Sentences with phrase «into sensitivity studies»

Given that local rainfall statistically can account for 30 - 50 % of the variation in local temperatures and given that simple physics help explain this, I am left wondering where the effect of rainfall on local temperatures in inserted into sensitivity studies, if indeed it needs to be.

Not exact matches

The study split prediabetics into a control group and two experimental groups — one in which subjects exercised and watched their weight and another in which people took metformin, a drug that improves insulin sensitivity in the liver.

The study, published in the journal of Food Research International, reveals the molecules released when real samples of bread and pasta are digested, providing new information for research into gluten sensitivity.

Absent understanding of cloud feedback processes, the best you can really do is mesh it into the definition of the emergent climate sensitivity, but I think probing (at least some of) the uncertainties in effects like this is one of the whole points of these ensemble - based studies.

Finally, there's the problem of other forms of sensitivities; this study observed that a masseur rubbing olive oil into a customer ended up with eczema on his hands.

One can temper that with studies of paleoclimate sensitivity, but the ensemble results still should be borne in mind, since doubling CO2 takes us into a climate that has no real precendent in the part of the climate record which has been used for exploring model sensitivity, and in many regards may not have any real precedent in the entire history of the planet (in terms of initial condition and rapidity of GHG increase).

eg «These studies provide new insights on the sensitivity and response of meridional ocean circulation to melt water inputs to the North Atlantic high latitudes (e.g., Bamberg et al., 2010; Irvali et al., 2012; Morley et al., 2011) and their potential role in amplifying small radiative variations into large a climate response through dynamic changes in ocean - atmosphere interactions (e.g., Morely et al., 2011; Irvali et al., 2012; Morley et al., 2014).

But what the GSL now says is that geological evidence from palaeoclimatology (studies of past climate change) suggests that if longer - term factors are taken into account, such as the decay of large ice sheets, the Earth's sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 could itself be double that predicted by most climate models.

Thanks Pete and Gavin for your response in # 116 that the estimates for future temperature change being discussed in the climate sensitivity studies (discussed in this thread) do not generally take into account the effect of increased temperature on initiating further natural carbon release.

But the Norwegian study is one among several recent studies that call into question the IPCC sensitivity assumptions.

There are plenty of ways of looking at the surface air temperature record that all show no statistically significant change in trend from earlier decades, so any study that concludes sensitivity is different just with the addition of the past decade must be automatically suspect, and that's not even taking into account the heat going into the oceans.

Also listed are properties of fits for sensitivity studies using the original dust deposition − temperature data points, data collected into 16 rather than 4 bins, four - binned data on the original Chinese Loess time scale (29), and four - binned data for an alternative Greenland temperature series (Supporting Information).

Geological evidence from studies of past climate change now suggests that if longer term factors are taken into account, such as the decay of large ice sheets and the operation of the full carbon cycle, the sensitivity of the Earth to a doubling of CO2 could be double that predicted by most climate models.

Using the sensitivity studies of the IPCC 5th Assessment Report, a rough estimate is that in order to stay below the 1.5 °C temperature target, the future cumulative net flux of CO2 into the atmosphere should not exceed 150 - 400 GtC.

Like JimD, you appear to be reaching into a bag of rationalizations to cover up the fact that 20th century warming does not support a postulated 2xCO2 sensitivity of 3C, but rather one of around 0.7 C (if half the 20th century warming is attributed to natural forcing, as the many solar studies I cited indicate).

Hansen's climate analyses have been based not only on the very basic physics that goes into climate model design, but on the detailed studies of the geological ice core and isotope records that are used to constrain and confirm climate model sensitivity.

Our own Climate Study Group has put most of our effort into sensitivity of temperature to CO2 and no coordinated effort into anything else.

By so doing they argue that the total forcings used as input into observational studies are too high (relative to CO2 equivalence) and hence climate sensitivities (which again have to be CO2 specific) are therefore biased low.

Therefore, you have to take into account the effect the difference between the Transient and Equilibrium climate sensitivity for the emissions before 1983 have in the period you study.

If there is insufficient information to control for clustering, we will enter outcome data into RevMan using individuals as the units of analysis, and then conduct a sensitivity analysis excluding such studies (Sensitivity analysis), to assess the potential biasing effects of inadequately controlled clustered trials (Dosensitivity analysis excluding such studies (Sensitivity analysis), to assess the potential biasing effects of inadequately controlled clustered trials (DoSensitivity analysis), to assess the potential biasing effects of inadequately controlled clustered trials (Donner 2001).