Sentences with phrase «likely climate sensitivity»

However, our current understanding of the range of likely climate sensitivity values isn't much better than it was decades ago.

Sherwood's team finds «a most likely climate sensitivity of about 4 °C, with a lower limit of about 3 °C.»

These results caused the latest IPCC report to drop its lower estimate of the likely climate sensitivity to double carbon dioxide from 2 °C to 1.5 °C.

Constraining the LGM cooling from proxy data yields a most likely climate sensitivity around 2.5 K, which is lower than ECS estimates based on present - day variability and / or the mean state.

We can also flip the calculation backwards, assuming the IPCC most likely climate sensitivity of 3 °C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 and using the numbers above.

Using a much wider range of evidence, the IPCC puts the likely climate sensitivity range to a doubling of CO2 at 2 to 4.5 °C with a most likely value of 3 °C.

C: increase in atmospheric CO2 from pre-industrial to present is anthropogenic (D / A) S: best guess for likely climate sensitivity (NUM) s: 2 - sigma range of S (NUM) a: ocean acidification will be a problem (D / A) L: expected sea level rise by 2100 in cm (all contributions)(NUM) B: climate change will be beneficial (D / A) R: CO2 emissions need to be reduced drastically by 2050 (D / A) T: technical advances will take care of any problems (D / A) r: the 20th century global temperature record is reliable (D / A) H: over the last 1000 years global temperature was hockey stick shaped (D / A) D: data has been intentionally distorted by scientist to support the idea of anthropogenic climate change (D / A) g: the CRU - mails are important for the science (D / A) G: the CRU - mails are important otherwise (D / A)

As these figures show, estimates from both models and observational data consistently find that the most likely climate sensitivity value is approximately 3 °C for a doubling of CO2.

If we assume the most likely climate sensitivity estimate is correct (3 °C for the equivalent of a doubling of atmospheric CO2), the equilibrium climate sensitivity parameter is 0.8.

Now suppose the likely climate sensitivity for doubled CO2 is at the IPCC low end (1.5 °C — which it isn't, it is probably at least 2.0 °C).

Not exact matches

Its sensitivity to climatic variables means that global climate change is likely to have profound impacts on coffee growing and production.

This sensitivity to climatic variables means that global climate change is likely to have profound impacts on coffee growing and production.

[Drew T. Shindell, Inhomogeneous forcing and transient climate sensitivity] That means climate change with an increase of more than a degree Celsius compared with the last century is very likely already.

«This lower sensitivity of trees to climate change likely reflects the reduced cold during winter that delays dormancy release.

I don't care about consensus, but for what it's worth: 10 out of 17 means a 59 % consensus that climate sensitivity is likely to be 2C or lower and as such global warming is not dangerous according to UN politically agreed criteria.

By not stating a «most likely» number, they are consciously obscuring the fact that climate sensitivity has been climbing down.

Specifically, the draft report says that «equilibrium climate sensitivity» (ECS)-- eventual warming induced by a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which takes hundreds of years to occur — is «extremely likely» to be above 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit), «likely» to be above 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.4 degrees Fahrenheit) and «very likely» to be below 6 degrees Celsius (10.8 Fahrenheit).

As I understand the leak, there is no claim that climate sensitivity is «likely» above 2degC.

That study addressed a puzzle, namely that recent studies using the observed changes in Earth's surface temperature suggested climate sensitivity is likely towards the lower end of the estimated range.

Thus, our conclusion was that the phenomenological climate transfer sensitivity to the 11 - year solar cycle is likely given by Z11y = 0.11 + / - 0.02 K / W / m ^ 2.

As for good news... I suppose it is good news that the most extreme climate sensitivity estimates are likely to be wrong.

We have often made the case here that equilibrium climate sensitivity is most likely to be around 0.75 + / - 0.25 C / (W / m2)(corresponding to about a 3 °C rise for a doubling of CO2).

Can we go beyond this rather vague statement and use the LGM to say which of the many models is most likely to have the right climate sensitivity?

The precise sensitivity of the climate to increasing CO2 is still fairly uncertain: 2 — 4.5 °C is a fairly wide range of likely values.

Temperature during the winter as a whole have generally decreased over the past two decades, likely as a result of climate change, but the sensitivity of ozone loss to the exact timing of March warming events makes ozone depletion a much more variable quantity.

From the article: «The most likely value of equilibrium climate sensitivity based on the energy budget of the most recent decade is 2.0 °C, with a 5 — 95 % confidence interval of 1.2 — 3.9 °C»

The real «equilibrium climate sensitivity,» which is the amount of global warming to be expected for a doubling of atmospheric CO2, is likely to be about 1 °C, some three times smaller than most models assumed.

This suggests that climate sensitivity may be higher than we currently believe, but it likely isn't lower.

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.

You may not be able to «prove» such an honest estimate, but it is more likely to be correct than a value based on some estimate of short term climate sensitivity.

collectively explore reasonable bounds on estimates of climate sensitivities (TCR, ECS), i.e., what we might call extreme sensitivities in the sense that they are «more than likely» not to be exceeded.

What is the reason for the changed lower end of the climate equilibrium sensitivity likely interval since the last IPCC report, 1.5 - 4.5 K vs 2.0 - 4.5 K?

Thus the projections are likely biased high not due to the climate sensitivity but due to the overestimated forcings growth.

«[Michaels] is on record as agreeing that the IPCC climate sensitivity range is likely to be correct»

We would be astonished if Michaels disputed this since he is on record as agreeing that the IPCC climate sensitivity range is likely to be correct and has never questioned the human contribution to CO2 and other GHG increases.

Well I find it sort of amusing (and a little tragic) that climate scientists (at least the blogger ones) are patting themselves on the back over their high standards of a press release that will just focus on the mundane «we also show a 3K sensitivity as most likely.»

Re # 22 (Alexandre), «[Michaels] is on record as agreeing that the IPCC climate sensitivity range is likely to be correct,» I come to a related but different conclusion from reading what Pat has written, including his book The Satanic Gases.

Ray Ladbury (94)-- I believe that IPCC AR4 states a range for climate sensitivity of 2 — 4.5 K (66 %) with 3 K most likely.

As for good news... I suppose it is good news that the most extreme climate sensitivity estimates are likely to be wrong.

So the marked early 20th century warming was likely a mixture of recovery from volcanic forcing and accumulated (but masked) greenhouse forcing [the 1880 - 1940 [CO2] rise from ~ 290 — ~ 309 ppm was quite significant (equivalent to nearly 0.3 oC at equilibrium with a mid-range climate sensitivity)-RSB-.

CO2 emissions in particular continue to increase at a rapid rate; ii) the effect of these gases is to warm the climate and it is very likely that most of the warming over the last 50 years was in fact driven by these increases; and iii) the sensitivity of the climate is very likely large enough that serious consequences can be expected if carbon emissions continue on this path.

This kind of forecast doesn't depend too much on the models at all — it is mainly related to the climate sensitivity which can be constrained independently of the models (i.e. via paleo - climate data), moderated by the thermal inertia of the oceans and assuming the (very likely) continuation of CO2 emissions at present or accelerated rates.

Some analysis of climate sensitivity has worked with a uniform prior — that's just one where all values are considered equally likely prior to incorporating our data.

Consider the implications for glacial climate of a sensitivity of twice the most likely value of 3 °C, i.e. 6 °C.

/ doubling CO2 is equally as likely as climate sensitivity of 3 million deg.

They perform a probability calculation assuming that any of the climate sensitivities in the IPCC range are equally likely.

Climate sensitivity is indeed uncertain, but the classic IPCC range (in my opinion) is still a good «likely» estimate.

[Response: The 5.8 degrees is not for climate sensitivity, that is a projection for 2100 using the biggest likely sensitivity and the fastest growth in greenhouse gases.

The most likely value of climate sensitivity from the AR4 [the fourth report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] was about 3 dclimate sensitivity from the AR4 [the fourth report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] was about 3 dClimate Change] was about 3 degrees.

That study addressed a puzzle, namely that recent studies using the observed changes in Earth's surface temperature suggested climate sensitivity is likely towards the lower end of the estimated range.