Sentences with phrase «low equilibrium sensitivity»

This has quite a low equilibrium sensitivity (2.1) and hence quite a low transient senstivity.

This has quite a low equilibrium sensitivity (2.1) and hence quite a low transient senstivity.

I am saying it is very likely that all the other effects, to the extent they are real, will reverse, causing a short term bounceback, while the deep ocean will continue to store heat, contributing to slowing the whole business down (without lowering the equilibrium sensitivity).

Not exact matches

The current crop of models studied by the IPCC range from an equilibrium sensitivity of about 1.5 °C at the low end to about 5 °C at the high end.

Beyond equilibrium climate sensitivity -LSB-...] Newer metrics relating global warming directly to the total emitted CO2 show that in order to keep warming to within 2 °C, future CO2 emissions have to remain strongly limited, irrespective of climate sensitivity being at the high or low end.»

A GCM with relatively low transient response but relatively high equilibrium sensitivity probably has large thermal inertia, therefore will take longer to equilibrate, and vice versa.

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?

At the low end of sensitivity, we are living in a period of over reaction by the climate and the rate of warming should tend to revert lower towards the equilibrium value.

The current crop of models studied by the IPCC range from an equilibrium sensitivity of about 1.5 °C at the low end to about 5 °C at the high end.

Hegerl et al (2006) for example used comparisons during the pre-industrial of EBM simulations and proxy temperature reconstructions based entirely or partially on tree - ring data to estimate the equilibrium 2xCO2 climate sensitivity, arguing for a substantially lower 5 % -95 % range of 1.5 — 6.2 C than found in several previous studies.

How about this brutally simplified calculation for a lower bound of equilibrium temperature sensitivity: — there seems to be a consensus that transient t.s. < equilibrium t.s. — today, the trend line is a + 1 C (see Columbia graph)-- CO2 is at 410, which is 1.46 * 280 — rise is logarithmic, log (base2) of 1.46 = 0.55 — 1/0.55 = 1.8 — therefore, a lower bound for ETS is 1.8 C

Depending on meridional heat transport, when freezing temperatures reach deep enough towards low - latitudes, the ice - albedo feedback can become so effective that climate sensitivity becomes infinite and even negative (implying unstable equilibrium for any «ice - line» (latitude marking the edge of ice) between the equator and some other latitude).

In fact, if the physics - based understanding of «equilibrium sensitivity» to any forcing is too low, then not only will CO2 have a greater effect, so too will all other forcings, such as: changes in the sun, in cloud cover, in albedo, etc..

This implies that analyses in the early part of a transition to a new equilibrium will give lower sensitivities than they should.

The wikipedia article on Climate Sensitivity states that the transient climate sensitivity is lower than equilibrium climate sensitivity which I do not quite Sensitivity states that the transient climate sensitivity is lower than equilibrium climate sensitivity which I do not quite sensitivity is lower than equilibrium climate sensitivity which I do not quite sensitivity which I do not quite understand.

This Nature Climate Change paper concluded, based purely on simulations by the GISS - E2 - R climate model, that estimates of the transient climate response (TCR) and equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) based on observations over the historical period (~ 1850 to recent times) were biased low.

Quantification of Climate System Responses: On equilibrium climate sensitivity, several delegations, including Australia, the Netherlands and others, noted that the message that the lower limit of the assessed «likely» range of climate sensitivity is less than the 2 °C in the AR4 can be confusing to policy makers and suggested noting it is the same as in previous assessments.

Assuming the same climate sensitivity, Lindzen's estimate of a 2.5 °C drop for a -30 W / m2 forcing would imply that currently doubling CO2 would warm the planet by only a third of a degree at equilibrium, which is well outside the bounds of IPCC estimates and even very low by most skeptical standards.

The «GHG only» sensitivity of ~ 1.34 C per doubling would appear to hard lower bound on ECS, since it assumes no aerosol offsets and runs over much less that the time needed (>> 100 years) to approach equilibrium.

I get the equilibrium temperature after about 4000 years (on a multi-layer ocean) and cyclical variations in temperature are 6K / 50 years with a fairly low variation of the overall sensitivity.

We argue that had the new science indicating a lower equilibrium climate sensitivity been properly incorporated into the determination of the SCC used by the DOE, it would have had a significant impact on the cost / benefit analysis used to justify the new regulation.

Climate sensitivities estimated from recent observations will therefore be biased low in comparison with CO2 - only simulations owing to an accident of history: when the efficacies of the forcings in the recent historical record are properly taken into account, estimates of [Transient Climate Respons — TCR] and [Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity — ECS] must be revised upwards.

But, as we have discussed previously, the new, lower estimate of the equilibrium climate sensitivity is just one of several key variables to which the SCC is very sensitive.

The fact that the estimates based on the instrumental period tend to peak low has probably more to do with the fact that the climate has not been in equilibrium during that entire instrumental period and so therefore converting the sensitivity computed into an equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), which is what is being discussed, requires some guesswork (and, dare I say it — modelling).

I'm afraid you are barking up the wrong tree when you simply tell me all the recent studies showing a much lower 2xCO2 equilibrium climate sensitivity are In your opinion «all wrong» (and actually expect me to believe you).

The 95 percent confidence range in this study was between about 1 and 7 °C equilibrium sensitivity, so very low and very high climate sensitivities could not be ruled out, but are relatively unlikely, based on the historical record.

I agree that reduction in snow or ice cover resulting from warming constitutes a likely slow positive feedback, but its magnitude may be quite small, at least for the modest changes in surface temperature that can be expected to arise if sensitivity is in fact fairly low, so the Forster / Gregory 06 results may nevertheless be a close approximation to a measurement of equilibrium climate sensitivity.

The study estimated with 68 percent probability that the equivalent equilibrium climate sensitivity is between 2.2 and 4.8 °C for a doubling of CO2, generally consistent with IPCC estimates, and inconsistent with the lower estimates preferred by GWPF.

Thus, a prior is a possibility for which the probability is high of a low equilibrium climate sensitivity.

A lower ratio would yield a higher climate sensitivity estimate — for a ratio of 0.6, the range would be 2.2 — 3.8 C. TCR involves an interval of about 70 years, and so it is unlikely that a response to doubled CO2 would exceed 70 percent of the equilibrium value in an interval that short.

Spencer and Braswell freely admit that using their simple model is just the first step in a complicated diagnosis, but also point out that the results from simple models provide insight that should help guide the development of more complex models, and ultimately could help unravel some of the mystery as to why full climate models produce high estimates of the earth's equilibrium climate sensitivity, while estimates based in real - world observations are much lower.

From the recent literature, the central estimate of the equilibrium climate sensitivity is ~ 2 °C, while the climate model average is ~ 3.2 °C, or an equilibrium climate sensitivity that is some 40 % lower than the model average.

I've figured out the difference in vertical scale between the two and I realize that the apparently low sensitivity in the Storms plot is owing to using 100 year response rather than equilibrium response.

They assert that their results imply that estimates of the transient climate response (TCR) and equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) derived from recent observations are biased low.

Skeptic researchers seem to be currently concentrating on the case for lower equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), arguing that it is lower than the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has hypothesized.

The central conclusion of this study is that to disregard the low values of effective climate sensitivity (≈ 1 °C) given by observations on the grounds that they do not agree with the larger values of equilibrium, or effective, climate sensitivity given by GCMs, while the GCMs themselves do not properly represent the observed value of the tropical radiative response coefficient, is a standpoint that needs to be reconsidered.

A widely noted 2013 study that compared the historical record of temperatures and CO2 levels since1860 found an Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS, now the preferred term) at the lower end of the range, ruling out 3 °C sSensitivity (ECS, now the preferred term) at the lower end of the range, ruling out 3 °C sensitivitysensitivity.