Sentences with phrase «like climate sensitivity»

The mean is not a good central estimate for a parameter like climate sensitivity with a highly skewed distribution.

It is broadly defined as the equilibrium global mean surface temperature change following a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Given that CO2 has been going up in a regular stepwise fashion for the last 30 years and there has been an initial jump in temps which was happily aligned with this with Mann like Climate sensitivity, Climate sensitivity might well have been 6.0.

However, the more we can constrain distribution functions of important process variables or outcomes like climate sensitivity or damages, the better will be humanity's chances of adaptation.

With upcoming release of IPCC Fifth Assessment Reports beginning late in September, there will be a sharp focus on specific issues like projected sea - level rise but also on broader issues like climate sensitivity and the decade - and - a-half-long slow - down in the rate of overall warming.

The lack of a unique natural measure in the space of continuous parameters like climate sensitivity S or feedback strength Y or any of the infinite number of equivalent functions is an essential problem with the present amount of empirical data.

It looks like climate sensitivity may be a lot lower than the IPCC models predict.

That isn't the case for something like the climate sensitivity.

So... the models don't give better answers to questions like climate sensitivity despite getting larger, faster, and using smaller grid sizes... and your conclusion is that because they have not improved, we should trust them?

That is to say, decisions over the next two or three decades affecting this larger context may influence the climate of 2100 and beyond in ways that are at least as significant as the implications of even the major current scientific uncertainties, like climate sensitivity and long - term ice - sheet stability.

Somewhat like Climate Sensitivity, or Climate Change, or any other term in the secret Warmist vocabulary.

A main focus for climate science in the coming years should be to use whatever methods are available to try to limit the range of uncertainties in key climate variables like the climate sensitivity and transient climate response.

However, they've also made egregious errors and their work simply hasn't stood up, especially as regards key issues like climate sensitivity.

Not exact matches

For scientists like Fasullo and co-author Kevin Trenberth, head of NCAR's climate analysis section, determining the climate's precise sensitivity to the CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere has been an unusually tough task.

The research team also assessed whether climate sensitivity was different in warmer times, like the Pliocene, than in colder times, like the glacial cycles of the last 800,000 years.

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.

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 agree that the issue of estimating climate sensitivity is conceptually something like «identifying» H from F and T in your formula.

For instance, there is no way that a «consensus» statement that climate sensitivity is probably around 3ºC (plus or minus a degree) should be interpreted as implying that climate sensitivity is more like 6ºC.

It is important to regard the LGM studies as just one set of points in the cloud yielded by other climate sensitivity estimates, but the LGM has been a frequent target because it was a period for which there is a lot of data from varied sources, climate was significantly different from today, and we have considerable information about the important drivers — like CO2, CH4, ice sheet extent, vegetation changes etc..

Whether the observed solar cycle in surface temperature is as large as.17 K (as in Camp and Tung) or more like.1 K (many previous estimates) is somewhat more in doubt, as is their interpretation in terms of low thermal inertia and high climate sensitivity in energy balance models.

Sometimes various factors like aerosols or vegetation change aren't considered, and thus whatever effect they might have would just be lumped into the value of climate sensitivity value that emerges from this method.

Beckage tells us that the uncertainty from human feedback comes close to the uncertainty scientists still have in the physical systems (things like permafrost melt, climate sensitivity, and all that).

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.

A raft of comfort goodies are packed inside like keyless go start / stop function, wind screen wipers with two sensitivity stages, armrest in front, 12V socket in front & rear, ECO start / stop, active parking assist, electric parking brake,, reversing camera, 360 degree camera, thermotronic 3 - zone automatic climate control, electrically adjustable seats in front with memory function and 4 - way lumbar support for front seats to name a few.

You can spend as much time as you like explaining the basis of the paleo - climate constraints on climate sensitivity, only to have the next comment claim that it's tiny based on an unpublished back - of - the - agenda calculation he read online.

(in general, whether for future projections or historical reconstructions or estimates of climate sensitivity, I tend to be sympathetic to arguments of more rather than less uncertainty because I feel like in general, models and statistical approaches are not exhaustive and it is «plausible» that additional factors could lead to either higher or lower estimates than seen with a single approach.

A climate scientist might not like that there are positive feedbacks that raise the climate sensitivity above 2.0.

[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.

However, a model that yields a sensitivity less than 2 is very unlikely to yield insight into the climate because it simply doesn't look like Earth.

The possibility of there existing a plausible model with such a high sensitivity is of such overarching importance, I would have liked to have seen one such model chosen, and to have available all of the standard runs being provided for the IPCC Fourth Assessment by the major modeling centers, in the same format used by those models, so that the climate community could judge for itself the plausibility of this model's climate simulation.

One issue is how to represent accurately the range of reasoned views on critical questions like the sensitivity of climate to greenhouse gases (basically, how warm the world will get from a particular rise in gas concentrations); how fast and far seas will rise; how ecosystems will, or won't, respond.

Climate sensitivity to doubling of CO2 is among the best determined parameters — it's very hard to get models to work with a sensitivity less than 2 or more than 5 to look anything like Earth.

I am thinking that the permafrost feedback article we were discussing was refering to a non-runaway feedback, but rather a delayed feedback, which is otherwise just like the fast feedbacks except that it's slow response would make clear that it does feedback on itself according to the climate sensitivity from all other feedbacks (it drives itself, via climate change, to go farther, but it approaches a limit asymptotically).

What about the feedbacks that are not normally well represented by ECS and normally fall into the Earth System Climate Sensitivity, stuff like the Arctic Ice cover, which now has trends over decades closer to what was seen on centuries in paleoclimate:

However, this is what he calls the short - run Charney climate sensitivity and argues that in the long - run given feedbacks from elements in the climate system which are treated in the short - run as boundary conditions, the long - term climate sensitivity is more like 6 C.

In this regard it's important to consider the difference between Crowley et al (2000), who use an energy balance model with a sensitivity of 2.0 to get something like the MBH99 reconstruction, and the ECHO - G climate model, which has a sensitivity of 3.5 and reasonable stratospheric component and gives somthing like Moberg.

Recent results (like this one and Otto et al.) hinting at lower climate sensitivity and reduced feedbacks should be seen as positive developments.

However, it is important to keep in mind that we might easily more than double it if we really don't make much effort to cut back (I think the current estimated reserves of fossil fuels would increase CO2 by a factor of like 5 or 10, which would mean a warming of roughly 2 - 3 times the climate sensitivity for doubling CO2 [because of the logarithmic dependence of the resulting warming to CO2 levels]-RRB-... and CO2 levels may be able to fall short of doubling if we really make a very strong effort to reduce emissions.

It's the people who like curiosity - driven research in climate dynamics who have the real incentive to argue that there's a lot of uncertainty, because uncertainty allows people with strong intellectual curiosity to make the case that there's at least some tangential benefit of their work to the climate sensitivity problem.

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.

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).

For instance, there is no way that a «consensus» statement that climate sensitivity is probably around 3ºC (plus or minus a degree) should be interpreted as implying that climate sensitivity is more like 6ºC.

This rules out the beliefs of many prominent climate scientist contrarians, like Roy Spencer (who believes equilibrium sensitivity is around 1.3 °C) and Richard Lindzen (who believes it's less than 1 °C).

Although the sensitivity of climate does change itself as the boundary conditions change, the past (PETM, glacial - interglacial cycles, etc) does not support sensitivities as low as 1 degree per doubling of CO2, and it doesn't support very high ones (like 10 degrees per doubling) either.

Second, the relationship we are seeing in the ice cores is made up of two independent factors: the sensitivity of the CO2 to temperature over the ice age cycle — roughly ~ 100 ppmv / 4ºC or ~ 25 ppmv / ºC — and the sensitivity of the climate to CO2, which we'd like to know.

It's just a bad analogy (rather like using the day - night contrast to estimate climate sensitivity).

I agree with her that there is plenty to debate, both on the science in tough areas like attribution and climate sensitivity and on what mix of incentives, investments, policies, communication efforts and other actions can build a more durable human relationship with the climate system.

In other words, you can not criticize my finding by stating something like:» your estimates for the climate sensitivity to secular solar changes is too large because I find that on a 30 years scale the sensitity is lower»!

I would also keep in mind the fact that we are only speaking of the short - term Charney Climate Sensitivity, and the long - term climate sensitivity is presumably going to be about twice that — due to ice sheet loss and thClimate Sensitivity, and the long - term climate sensitivity is presumably going to be about twice that — due to ice sheet loss anSensitivity, and the long - term climate sensitivity is presumably going to be about twice that — due to ice sheet loss and thclimate sensitivity is presumably going to be about twice that — due to ice sheet loss ansensitivity is presumably going to be about twice that — due to ice sheet loss and the like.

But, if important and highly influential papers like Forster and Gregory (2006) https://judithcurry.com/2011/07/05/the-ipccs-alteration-of-forster-gregorys-model-independent-climate-sensitivity-results/ and Forest et al. (2006) incorrectly replotted or wrong, can we rely on the IPCC's conclusions about climate sensitivity?