Sentences with phrase «lower climate sensitivity»

Certainly the observation record points toward a lower climate sensitivity now than it did in the year 2000, or even 2007.

The relevant question for me, is that sudden drop - off an argument for a lower climate sensitivity, and I don't see why it would be.

In fact, the lower climate sensitivity is, the faster must total precipitation increase with GMST, or the atmosphere would heat up too much.

I'd have to look more into why the thermal inertia is greater in models with higher climate sensitivity than in models with lower climate sensitivity.

«Let us hope that a lower climate sensitivity of 2.5 degrees C turns out to be correct.

The impression I've gotten is that some people, not knowing that «net positive feedback» may exclude the Planck response, think that this must imply the climate is unstable — the funny thing is, this will be used to argue for a lower climate sensitivity, but one could see that something is wrong here because the higher climate sensitivity caused by the positive feedback is still finite.

I think there is likewise no consensus on the studies that have recently argued for a lower climate sensitivity, yet the IPCC has widened the uncertainty range to encompass them.

the numerous objects I can see for this paper is for the authors to get something in the peer - reviewed literature which the informed can cite as supporting lower climate sensitivity than the standard IPCC range

«the only object I can see for this paper is for the authors to get something in the peer - reviewed literature which the ignorant can cite as supporting lower climate sensitivity than the standard IPCC range».

Curry's evidence to support that assertion boiled down to arguing of a supposed «lack of warming since 1998», discrepancies between models and observations during that time, a lower climate sensitivity range in the 2014 than the 2007 IPCC report, and the fact that Antarctic sea ice extent has increased.

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.

Most all climate impacts are related to the climate sensitivity — the lower the climate sensitivity, the fewer the impacts.

Generally speaking, models that are more consistent with recent temperatures tend to have slightly lower climate sensitivity than those that predict higher temperatures over the past few decades.

Nevertheless, this new paper challenges the idea that modern observations are evidence of a significantly lower climate sensitivity.

That method was the outlier, yielding lower climate sensitivity estimates than other approaches.

Cumulus clouds will have the same effect, but more in balance with the positive effects, resulting in less negative net feedback, but with the same result, much lower climate sensitivity than the IPCC would have you believe.

Note that even with the lower climate sensitivity, the model shows the planet warming 3 °C by 2100 in this emissions scenario (see the figure caption for further details).

Amongst the many other key points this raises — such as much lower climate sensitivity than proposed by the IPCC as Lord Monckton points out — also consider how small this # is in the over all radiation budget.

A few studies using this approach since about 2012 have begun yielding lower climate sensitivity estimates.

These lower climate sensitivity evaluations are closer to the null hypothesis of predominantly natural climate forcings.

The GWPF report concludes by complaining that by not emphasizing the lower climate sensitivity estimates, the IPCC has «inadequately informed» policymakers about the state of the science.

Mosher has bet a Cowtan and Way plus lower climate sensitivity range.

I have one minor comment on the potential policy implications of a lower climate sensitivity to CO2.

Note in a previous discussion Steven, a Luke warmer, passionate about saving the planet, said to me that the longer the pause goes the lower the climate sensitivity would be and did not rule it out going under 1.6.

While Lucia opines, rightly so elsewhere when I naively asked, that it must be positive given a push can not feedback a greater force against it the pause in temperature mandates lower climate sensitivity.

If this is truly a claim for lower climate sensitivity that you have not yourself put forward in any of your writings or speeches, then I apologize for my incorrect inference that it is a claim that you have made.

To arrive at their lower climate sensitivity range than the IPCC, Lewis and Curry analysed the Earth's observed temperature change, ocean heat uptake and the level of human greenhouse gas emissions and natural variability.

My argument a lower climate sensitivity and therefore a less aggresive posture on CO2 is here.

«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-...]»

The IPCC is not altogether blind to the new scientific findings indicating a lower climate sensitivity, but it barely pays them lip - service in its new report.

There appear to be upwards of 15 estimates below 1.5 C. Incorporating the numerous lower climate sensitivity estimates would need to rephrase to something like: «Climate sensitivity is likely to be in the range 0.5 °C to 4 °C with a best estimate of 0.6 °C for measurements and 3 °C for models.

A lower climate sensitivity does have a large impact on decisions to be made.

In the late morning, a regime change occurs to a situation with much lower climate sensitivity.

The difference is probably enough to transform clouds from having a slight positive feedback to a slight negative feedback which in turn would lower climate sensitivity to CO2 doublings from 2 - 5C to 1C.

... While the satellite - based metrics for the period 2000 — 2010 depart substantially in the direction of lower climate sensitivity from those similarly computed from coupled climate models, we find that, with traditional methods, it is not possible to accurately quantify this discrepancy in terms of the feedbacks which determine climate sensitivity.

Cumulus clouds will have the same effect, but more in balance with the positive effects, resulting in less negative net feedback, but with the same result, much lower climate sensitivity than the IPCC would have you believe.I realize that climate sensitivity is not usually discussed as a local phenomenon, but it should be, since it is the integral of all local phenomena.

How can EPA have increased the cost of carbon this past year, when we now can see that even Nature magazine, and NOAA, are published data suggesting a considerably lower climate sensitivity?

If you want to calculate how much lower the climate sensitivity model would have to be to match C fine, but that's easier in reference to scenario B given forcings most closely followed that scenario.

As one would expect, a lower climate sensitivity significantly reduces temperatures in the later part of the century.

In that case, you could have a consistent picture with lower climate sensitivity.

In terms of advocacy, this is tricky; people in the fossil fuel sector will doubtless claim that lower climate sensitivity means rapid reductions in fossil fuel use are not necessary, so they can go on with their plans for more gas and oil development without breaching the Paris Agreements, etc..

A new paper in the Journal of Climate by Nic Lewis is in line with other work pointing to a lower climate sensitivity.

Just for the sake of illustration, though, here's one scenario where higher Holocene variability could go along with lower climate sensitivity: Suppose that some unknown stabilizing mechanism makes the real world less sensitive to radiative forcing than our current models.

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

«Lower Climate Sensitivity Estimates: New Good News» by Chip Knappenberger, March 19, 2012 http://www.masterresource.org/2012/03/lower-climate-sensitivity-estimates/

But as far as I can tell, most sceptics don't flat out deny greenhouse gas warming, but they incorporate their «extra» forcing by assuming a lower climate sensitivity.

Just for the sake of illustration, though, here's one scenario where higher Holocene variability could go along with lower climate sensitivity: Suppose that some unknown stabilizing mechanism makes the real world less sensitive to radiative forcing than our current models.

In that case, you could have a consistent picture with lower climate sensitivity.

Rogelj, Joeri, et al. «Implications of potentially lower climate sensitivity on climate projections and policy.»

In the recent article on the three options for the IPCC, I said that the IPCC can not afford to ignore the recent paprs on lower climate sensitivity.