Sentences with phrase «known about climate sensitivity»

ie: «little is known about climate sensitivity» and «little is known about future emissions».

There is a lot we do not know about cloud - aerosol interaction and that impacts what we do not know about climate sensitivity.

What do we know about climate sensitivity?

Not exact matches

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.

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.

I think that the vast majority of lay readers who read the headlines and the text of stories on climate sensitivity do not know this and they simply presume that the scientists concerned are talking about their absolute best estimates of the possible temperature increases which may be faced.

I don't know about Nature and real climatologists, but I was interested in Efficiently constraining climate sensitivity with paleoclimate simulations.

FWIW, we found an upper limit on climate sensitivity of about 6C, but apparently that also isn't sexy enough to publish cos everyone knew it already.

I don't know what you are talking about regarding the climate sensitivities.

3 - These assumptions themselves are based on assumptions (that internal forcings have no influence and that forcing is external and that we understand the effects this will have - inc. climate sensitivity) 4 - THESE assumptions are based on the assumption that we know enough about the system to make these sort of judgements.

We know the planet will warm between about 1.5 and 4.5 °C in response to the increased greenhouse effect from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide (the «climate sensitivity»).

capt. dallas, you have not understood my equation, and are changing the subject by even talking about entropy and 33 C. My equation applies to sensitivity around today's climate, not a hypothetical no - GHG climate.

They wrote (as quoted by you): «But given how little is known about either the climate's sensitivity to greenhouse - gas emissions or about future emissions levels,...» The use of the word «either» makes it very clear that The Economist knows that uncertainty about climate sensitivity is * not * the same thing as (or «equal to») uncertainty about emissions.

[¶]... Basing our assessment on a combination of several independent lines of evidence, as summarised in Box 10.2 Figures 1 and 2, including observed climate change and the strength of known feedbacks simulated in GCMs, we conclude that the global mean equilibrium warming for doubling CO2, or «equilibrium climate sensitivity», is likely to lie in the range 2 °C to 4.5 °C, with a most likely value of about 3 °C.

The vast majority of the public knows a lot less about climate sensitivity, the link between hurricanes and CO2 or analogues with past climates than either you or I do, but the link between these issues and actual policy is quite convoluted.

But the author may know nothing about energy balance or transient climate sensitivity or the attribution problem.

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.

It's especially plausible given what we know about the sensitivity of climate to ocean surface conditions.

Some of the climate denialists are proposing climate sensitivities that are simply physically implausible, couldn't be the case in reality at all, contradicting everything we know about the climate system.

One of the most interesting things about the climate debate is that in one place it involves people arguing about point A (in this case sensitivity), by assuming that B is well known (in this case temperature change), while not far away people are hotly debating B. Most of AGW science, including F&G, is based on assuming that the surface statistical model means are facts.

I know that earlier Forster & Gregory inconsistently describe the conclusion as the «suggestion» of a relatively small climate sensitivity, but in the light of their aforementioned subsequent statement about robustness I see that as likely to have been a sop to a reviewer who was hostile to their conclusion.

If Andrew Neil knew more about the science he might understand 1) how biased a perspective his chosen lines of questioning sometimes give on AGW, 2) that the IPCC's (AR4) suggested range for climate sensitivity is in line with the large body of evidence on the subject, and 2) how out on a limb scientists such as Judith Curry and Roy Spencer are from the mainstream evidence - based consensus.

Weitzman assumes a fat tail distribution, I am saying we don't know what the distribution looks like, and that we can probably bound it on the upper end (Wietzman's 20C climate sensitivity is beyond anything anyone is talking about).

In a remarkable example of scientific malfeasance, it has become apparent that the IPCC knew a lot more than it revealed in its 2013 climate compendium about how low the earth's climate sensitivity is likely to be.

► First, AGW model - makers refuse to change their assumptions about the climate's sensitivity to CO2 — natural or otherwise — no matter what reason dictates; and,

If the authors don't provide a solid physical explanation for why we should no longer expect to see the observed quadratic trend we have been seeing since 1850 and instead expect no more than a linear trend after 2000, the paper would appear to fall flat on its face (at least as concerns its conclusions that climate sensitivity should be about 1/3 what the IPCC predicts).

IPCC (2007) does not mention κ and, therefore, provides neither error - bars nor a «Level of Scientific Understanding» (the IPCC's subjective measure of the extent to which enough is known about a variable to render it useful in quantifying climate sensitivity).

Curry might say something about the» 76 - ’78 warm phase, but either climate sensitivity is no more her expertise than many amateur bloggers or she is intentionally muddying the waters with a long screed about Balmaseda reanalysis and attacking the strawman of «hiatus = missing heat».

As noted above, we do not know enough about natural variation to extract the so called climate sensitivity from the noise.