Sentences with phrase «low value of climate sensitivity»

If emissions stay as high as they are, that means even a low value of climate sensitivity would see a significant amount of warming by the end of the century.

But then Archibald multiplies the radiative forcing by an absurdly low value of the climate sensitivity parameter.

He says low values of climate sensitivity will still affect global temperatures as CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere rise, but increases in temperature may be of similar magnitude to naturally driven temperature cycles, a scenario that has strong implications for how we manage causes and consequences of climate change.

What do the lower values of climate sensitivity imply for policy?

The method used to calculate such low values of climate sensitivity fails to include important regional dynamics in the climate response, and this has been shown to bias it toward low values.

Even if some lower values of climate sensitivity are acceptable, the SCC remains at just about half of its original value

Not exact matches

In the end, Archibald concludes that the warming from the next 40 ppm of CO2 rise (never mind the rest of it) will only be 0.04 degrees C. Archibald's low - ball estimate of climate change comes not from the modtran model my server ran for him, but from his own low - ball value of the climate sensitivity.

One of his reasons to claim that «the risk of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming appears to be so low that it is not currently worth doing anything to try to control it» is that he uses a very low value for the climate sensitivity based on non-reviewed «studies», while ignoring the peer - reviewed work.

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.

One of his reasons to claim that «the risk of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming appears to be so low that it is not currently worth doing anything to try to control it» is that he uses a very low value for the climate sensitivity based on non-reviewed «studies», while ignoring the peer - reviewed work.

Now comes a new entry in the effort to specify the value known as «climate sensitivity,» and it falls on the low side of the existing estimates.

PAGE09 and DICE2013 have different models of the climate - economics interface and different assumptions about social values, but they agree on what low climate sensitivity does in relative terms to the social cost of carbon.

These values have been estimated using relatively simple climate models (one low - resolution AOGCM and several EMICs based on the best estimate of 3 °C climate sensitivity) and do not include contributions from melting ice sheets, glaciers and ice caps.

If a doubling of CO2 centred on values between low to pre-industrial leads to a smaller (relative) temperature response than doubling CO2 centred on the range between pre-industrial and current values — what does that tell us about future climate sensitivity — under ever - rising concentrations?

The original paper reports a climate sensitivity range with a lower 90 % CI boundary of 1.6 K, a median of 6.1 K, and a modal value of 2.1, putting it on the higher side of climate sensitivity estimates (Fig. 2 above).

Their reconstruction suggested that ocean temperatures varied less from today's value than one might have thought for an ice age, an indicator of relatively low climate sensitivity.

Because of the many uncertainties involved, any estimate of climate sensitivity comes with a range, a lower and upper limit within which the real value could reasonably lie.

But arguments over the precise value of climate sensitivity duck the wider point, which is that even if we're lucky and climate sensitivity is on the low side of scientists» estimates, we're still heading for a substantial level of warming by the end of the century if greenhouse gas emissions aren't addressed, as the IPCC has highlighted.

We're emitting carbon dioxide so fast that the difference between a low and a high value of climate sensitivity is largely irrelevant in climate policy terms.

The «flaw» of low - ECS climate model studies may not be so much in aerosols, the NASA study suggests, as the effective radiative forcing scenario (with high climate sensitivity) is accompanied with relatively low value for aerosol efficacy:

This concurs with the empirically determined values of low climate sensitivity.

«All of this [opposition] testimony is flawed to the extent it simply relies on... predictions by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -LSB-...] today the best evidence indicates that... a much lower climate sensitivity value of 1 °C or 1.5 °C is correct -LSB-...]Climate Change -LSB-...] today the best evidence indicates that... a much lower climate sensitivity value of 1 °C or 1.5 °C is correct -LSB-...]climate sensitivity value of 1 °C or 1.5 °C is correct -LSB-...]»

Observations suggest lower values for climate sensitivity whether we study long - term humidity, upper tropospheric temperature trends, outgoing long wave radiation, cloud cover changes, or the changes in the heat content of the vast oceans.

The analysis by Nicholas Lewis arrives at a mean non-model based 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 1.6 °C (with some caveats that including the impact of clouds would probably lower this value).

It is worth noting that inferences of climate sensitivity from energy budget estimates suggest low ECS values, i.e., ~ 2 K, but their uncertainty is so large that they can not exclude much higher ECS (Forster 2016).

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.

Hansen and Sato argue that the probable range of climate sensitivity values is not as large as currently believed (unlikely to fall outside the range of 2 to 4 °C for doubled CO2)- both very high and very low values can effectively be ruled out using paleoclimate data.

It is encouraging that the global mean climate sensitivity parameter for cases involving lower stratospheric O3 changes and that for CO2 changes (viz., doubling) are reasonably similar in Christiansen (1999) while being within about 25 % of a central value in Hansen et al. (1997a).

And this situation also produced the lowest estimate for the earth's climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide emissions — a value of 1.3 °C.

We have two new entries to the long (and growing) list of papers appearing the in recent scientific literature that argue that the earth's climate sensitivity — the ultimate rise in the earth's average surface temperature from a doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide content — is close to 2 °C, or near the low end of the range of possible values presented by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change climate sensitivity — the ultimate rise in the earth's average surface temperature from a doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide content — is close to 2 °C, or near the low end of the range of possible values presented by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Climate Change (IPCC).

The study cited above shows that at discount rates of 5 or 7 %, one of the models used by the IWG can even produce negative SCC values (in combination with lower climate sensitivity), implying that CO2 emissions are a net positive and could justifiably be subsidized.

One way of arriving at a lower SCC is to choose lower end values of climate response to CO2, or climate sensitivity.

The lower value — which conforms rather more closely with mainstream thinking than the higher value yields an effective climate sensitivity of ca 1.5 deg K for a doubling of CO2, which gets fairly close to ZDM estimates using historical forcing, temperature and ocean heat data.»

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.