Sentences with phrase «know the climate sensitivity»

Empirically, we know that for a particular model, once you know its climate sensitivity you can easily predict how much it will warm or cool if you change one of the forcings (like CO2 or solar).

I don't think we could ever know climate sensitivity to the nearest 0.0001 K — that seems fairly obvious.

Empirically, we know that for a particular model, once you know its climate sensitivity you can easily predict how much it will warm or cool if you change one of the forcings (like CO2 or solar).

In other words, until we know climate sensitivity precisely, all of this is based on the precautionary principle, except the costs far outweigh the benefits.

So now to calculate the change in temperature, we just need to know the climate sensitivity.

One protagonist, «niclewis», a well known climate sensitivity researcher, uses the Jeffreys prior in his estimations.

In other words we don't know the climate sensitivity.

We know the climate sensitivity to radiative forcing to be about 3 °C per 4 W / m2 of forcing to within something like a 10 % uncertainty, base on current climate modeling and the geological record (see Hansen et al., 2008) for details http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha00410c.html The natural (unforced) variability of the climate system is going to remain highly uncertain for the foreseeable future.

Not exact matches

The study's results suggest that sensitivity to changes in climate can not be predicted simply by knowing locations within the species» climate envelope, she pointed out.

One of climate science's great quests is to project how much earth warms when carbon dioxide concentrations double — something known as climate sensitivity.

By studying the relationship between CO2 levels and climate change during a warmer period in Earth's history, the scientists have been able to estimate how the climate will respond to increasing levels of carbon dioxide, a parameter known as «climate sensitivity».

The whole CAGW — GHG scare is based on the obvious fallacy of putting the effect before the cause.As a simple (not exact) analogy controlling CO2 levels to control temperature is like trying to lower the temperature of an electric hot plate under a boiling pan of water by capturing and sequestering the steam coming off the top.A corollory to this idea is that the whole idea of a simple climate sensitivity to CO2 is nonsense and the sensitivity equation has no physical meaning unless you already know what the natural controls on energy inputs are already ie the extent of the natural variability.

The IPCC wishes to destroy the world economy and starve the world of energy and food at a cost of $ 76 trillion over the next 40 year's (UN estimate), to keep global temps below 2C, when even their wildly pessimistic and disconfirmed projections (formally known as predictions) now suggest that climate sensitivity could be as low as 1.5 C, without spending a dime.

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.

If temperatures do not increase, even more so should they fall, we will know that the case for AGW has been very much over hyped and that Climate Sensitivity is even lower than even the latest papers are suggesting such that the need to take any action is unlikely.

Myles Allen has posted here, RC planning another climate sensitivity post, perhaps Myles could spare the time... I know you're all busy, I know it's cheeky, but if ya don't ask...;)

As we explain in our glossary item, climatologists use the concept of radiative forcing and climate sensitivity because it provides a very robust predictive tool for knowing what model results will be, given a change of forcing.

Specifically, Newell and a co-author from the Air Force named Thomas Dopplick challenged the prevailing view that a doubling of the earth's CO2 blanket would raise temperatures about 3 °C (5 °F)-- a measure known as climate sensitivity.

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

I'm not even an amateur climate scientist, but my logic tells me that if clouds have a stronger negative feedback in the Arctic, and I know (from news) the Arctic is warming faster than other areas, then it seems «forcing GHGs» (CO2, etc) may have a strong sensitivity than suggested, but this is suppressed by the cloud effect.

As for the points Ferdinand makes in his (large) comment, I still contend that Ferdinand is misinterpreting the work on climate sensitivity to various forcings, and the need to make the sensitivity inference consistent with what we know about the physics of the system.

Thus it is very important to know what the real impact of historical solar changes is, as 0.1 K in the past, results in climate sensitivity for anthropogenic at the high end, while 0.9 K results in a very low effect of anthropogenic, if the instrumental temperature trend of the last 1.5 century is used as reference.

We know that the climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from the pre-industrial level of 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv) to 560 ppmv (we're currently at 390 ppmv) will cause 2 — 4.5 °C of warming.

For example Knutti et al. 2017 wrote in Nature Geoscience, that in any case greenhouse gas emissions will have to limited, no matter if the CO2 climate sensitivity value is possibly lower:

A team led by Kate Marvel (among them also the known climate activist Gavin Schmidt) claimed in February, 2018, in the Geophysical Research Letters that the real temperature trend of the last decades are not suitable for calculating CO2 climate sensitivity.

If we do not know the thermal response of the earth well enough to know the size of the solar cycle response how close are we to knowing the relationship between observable (short term) climate sensitivity and the long run sensitivity.

IPCC finds it essentially impossible (yeah, I know, highly unlikely or whatever) that the climate sensitivity could be less than 1.5 degrees C for doubling CO2, and 3 degrees C is a best - guess value.

In some sense, though, almost any known forcing is useful in inferring climate sensitivity, since the same feedbacks that determine the response to Milankovic also determine response to CO2, though the relative weightings of the different feedbacks are likely to be different.

For example, we know the past CO2 radiative forcing to very high accuracy, but there are more uncertainties in the aerosol forcing; applying a consistent climate sensitivity to both CO2 and aerosols, you can get a match to the observed record for a range of different supposed aerosol forcings, but you can't take it too far.

Given that clouds are known to be the primary source of uncertainty in climate sensitivity, how much confidence can you place in a study based on a model that doesn't even attempt to simulate clouds?

Wigley et al. (2005b) demonstrate that the analysis method of Douglass and Knox (2005) severely underestimates (by a factor of three) climate sensitivity if applied to a model with known sensitivity.

Nic (or anyone else)... would you be able to list all the studies that have used flat priors to estimate climate sensitivity, so that people know to avoid them?

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).

The point of this post is that the ice core data are entirely consistent with what we already knew (and have known since 1896 A.D. when Arrhenius published his climate sensitivity calculations).

James Cutler, FAIA, founding partner of Cutler Anderson Architects, is known for his environmental and emotional sensitivity to place, institution, program, climate, and cultural circumstance.

We can get lulled into a false sense of security with talk that climate sensitivity might be low or medium (and right now we still don't know for sure where it is, other than to say the majority of evidence points to medium).

High climate sensitivity comes mostly from some climate models, as far as I know.

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

Hansen for example suggested (at the AGU in dec 2008) that climate sensitivity is known more accurately than the other two quantities, whereas the more often heard trade - off (correct me if I'm wrong) is between aerosol forcing and sensitivity.

Dan has yet to acknowledged is that the fossil record clearly shows that the best value of the known feedbacks, whatever their «exact» values may be, are included in the IPCC's approximate estimate of the climate sensitivity, and that this is strongly supported by the GCMs.

Myles Allen has posted here, RC planning another climate sensitivity post, perhaps Myles could spare the time... I know you're all busy, I know it's cheeky, but if ya don't ask...;)

My presentation is designed to give a lay audience a good understanding of how greenhouse gasses work, and why we know the value of climate sensitivity.

On a more serious note, the problem for journalists (if they know what they are doing) in reporting a range of results for climate sensitivity is that the low end is ho - hum, but the higher end is more interesting.

Other readers here know better than I, but if we presume that a 3 ˚C per doubling of CO2 is correct for climate sensitivity then the current level of 395 ppm translates into an actual temperature commitment right now of 1.41 ˚C.

Constraining climate sensitivity isn't a matter of a few «calculations,» but of considering known or modeled climate forcings and responses.

On that front, I'd be curious to know what you'd propose as a backup plan if the climate's sensitivity to CO2 turns out to be higher than you think?

Your attempt to estimate equilibrium climate sensitivity from the 20th C won't work because a) the forcings are not that well known (so the error in your estimate is large), b) the climate is not in equilibrium — you need to account for the uptake of heat in the ocean at least.

I didn't know that data since 1850 as summarized is essentially useless for estimating climate sensitivity given that the Earth's radiative heat exchange is not in equilibrium over that period.

A paper on climate sensitivity today in Science will no doubt see a great deal of press in the next few weeks.