Sentences with phrase «lower global sensitivity»

But the regional effects can potentially contribute to a much lower global sensitivity than people would expect if they intuitively assumed that sensitivity (with «feedbacks») can't be negative.

Not exact matches

As technology commoditizes the lower end of recruiting, more and more search firms are targeting C - suite engagements at global corporations — assignments for which the barriers to entry remain high and client sensitivity to fees relatively low.

This new research takes away the lower end of climate sensitivity estimates, meaning that global average temperatures will increase by 3 °C to 5 °C with a doubling of carbon dioxide.»

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.

The IPCC wishes to destroy the world economy and starve the world of energy and food at a cost of $ 76 trillion over the next 40 year's (UN estimate), to keep global temps below 2C, when even their wildly pessimistic and disconfirmed projections (formally known as predictions) now suggest that climate sensitivity could be as low as 1.5 C, without spending a dime.

The variation in global climate sensitivity among GCMs is largely attributable to differences in cloud feedbacks, and feedbacks of low - level clouds in particular.

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.»

If the climate sensitivity is low, for example due to increasing low - lying cloud cover reflecting more sunlight as a response to global warming, then how can these large past climate changes be explained?

Some global warming «skeptics» argue that the Earth's climate sensitivity is so low that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in a surface temperature change on the order of 1 °C or less, and that therefore global warming is nothing to worry about.

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.

This is similar to how the denier claims of no global warming, or of no anthropogenic influence upon warming, or of low climate sensitivity, depend on all observational data being wrong in the same direction.

The obvious answer (from someone who is indeed receptive to arguments for lower - than - consensus climate sensitivities) is that it was on a par with recent hot years because temperatures at US latitudes of the globe really weren't as much cooler in the 1930s / 1940s (compared to the present) than GISS / Hadley's best estimates (from often sketchy global coverage) suggest.

In # 78 Chris wrote:... «But with every year that the global temperature fails to break new ground (say +0.50 on the Hadley measure) the more receptive I will be to arguments for lower - than - consensus climate sensitivities».

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.

A low sensitivity implies additional atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on global climate.

In order for the man - made global warming theory to be incorrect, climate sensitivity must be low (see Climate Sensitivity: The Skeptisensitivity must be low (see Climate Sensitivity: The SkeptiSensitivity: The Skeptic Endgame).

The scientific solution to the problem: No large global trend trend in aerosols and low climate sensitivity.

The right - hand panel shows ranges of global average temperature change above pre-industrial, using (i) «best estimate» climate sensitivity of 3 °C (black line in middle of shaded area), (ii) upper bound of likely range of climate sensitivity of 4.5 °C (red line at top of shaded area)(iii) lower bound of likely range of climate sensitivity of 2 °C (blue line at bottom of shaded area).

It sounded like Roger thought sceptics were now changing their tune but clearly, with lower sensitivity, The Pause and no hope of any global policy harmony on the horizon, the strains that are coming from the alarmist camp now have much more of a sceptic air.

In some locations and amongst some groups of people with high exposure, high sensitivity and / or low adaptive capacity, net costs will be significantly larger than the global average.

However, because climate scientists at the time believed a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would cause a larger global heat imbalance than today's estimates, the actual climate sensitivities were approximatly 18 % lower (for example, the «Best» model sensitivity was actually closer to 2.1 °C for doubled CO2).

Ultimately our paper shows that all three of the main conclusions in DK12 are faulty: the rate of OHC increase has not slowed in recent years, there is no evidence for «climate shifts» in global heat content data, and the recent OHC data do not support the conclusion that the net climate feedback is negative or that climate sensitivity is low.

DK12 used ocean heat content (OHC) data for the upper 700 meters of oceans to draw three main conclusions: 1) that the rate of OHC increase has slowed in recent years (the very short timeframe of 2002 to 2008), 2) that this is evidence for periods of «climate shifts», and 3) that the recent OHC data indicate that the net climate feedback is negative, which would mean that climate sensitivity (the total amount of global warming in response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels, including feedbacks) is low.

As shown in Figure 2, the IPCC FAR ran simulations using models with climate sensitivities (the total amount of global surface warming in response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2, including amplifying and dampening feedbacks) correspoding to 1.5 °C (low), 2.5 °C (best), and 4.5 °C (high).

Second, we compared projections centered 80 years from now (2070 — 2099) from two global climate models with higher and lower sensitivities to atmospheric greenhouse gas levels.

That may go some way to explaining why a low sensitivity model works better on global averages but it's not just a case of playing with the global tuning knob.

If there has been only a fairly small change in ocean heat flux over the last century and the ratio of global increase in surface temperature to increase in forcing is low (as the evidence certainly suggests), then it follows that climate sensitivity is low — perhaps of the order of 1.5 C.

For a method for that, may I encourage you to look at Roy Spencer's recent model on thermal diffusion in the ocean: More Evidence that Global Warming is a False Alarm: A Model Simulation of the last 40 Years of Deep Ocean Warming June 25th, 2011 See especially his Figure Forcing Feedback Diffusion Model Explains Weak Warming in 0 - 700 m layer as Consistent with Low Climate Sensitivity His model appears to be more accurate than the IPCC's.

A regression of AMO index, Nino 3.4, solar cycle, and total GHG forcing against the Hadley global temperature record shows very good overall correlation (R ^ 2 of about 0.9) as well, and suggests both strong correlation of temperature to the AMO index and a low sensitivity to radiative forcing (about 1.2 C per doubling of CO2).

Zhu, P., Hack, J., Keilh, J and Zhu, P, Bretherton, C. 2007, Climate sensitivity of tropical and subtropical marine low cloud amount to ENSO and global warming due to doubled CO2 — JGR, VOL.

Cherry picking a low improbable value for the CO2 temperature sensitivity (how much the global surface temperature increases when atmospheric CO2 increases)- and then illogically not mentioning the uncertainty in the sensitivity.

If CO2 has low sensitivity than it has contributed very little towards global warming because virtually all of the rise has occurred in just a few short steps.

I think James» point about the last decade is not that global warming has stopped (implying low or zero climate sensitivity) but that it has not accelerated to the extent that it would have if climate sensitivity were very high (above, say, 4).

He has published two papers stating that climate change is not serious: a 2001 paper hypothesizing that clouds would provide a negative feedback to cancel out global warming, and a 2009 paper claiming that climate sensitivity (the amount of warming caused by a doubling of carbon dioxide) was very low.

Even if climate sensitivity is on the lower end, if we don't get our emissions under control, we will still see a dangerous amount of global warming (more details on this to come in a future blog post).

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.

In fact, if the quasi-periodic effects on global temperature are as strong as Tsonis proposes, then this would strongly suggest that the sensitivity of models is at present too low; and that the heating on the scale of the coming century is likely to be at the high end, or worse, of IPCC expectations.

If we take the lower end of this range, even a 2 °C climate sensitivity would mean that humans have been responsible for more than half of the global warming over the past century.

Some of them deny it is even warming, others claim anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a hoax, others claim that there is some magical negative feedback that will result in virtually no warming, others like Lewis cherry pick literature to delude themselves into thinking that climate sensitivity is low, while others are convinced that an ice age is imminent;)

Knowing that the spread in ECS is mostly related to uncertainties in low - cloud feedback, it seems obvious that constraining how low clouds respond to global warming can reduce the spread of climate sensitivity among models.

We use a global model, simplified to essential processes, to investigate state - dependence of climate sensitivity, finding an increased sensitivity towards warmer climates, as low cloud cover is diminished and increased water vapor elevates the tropopause.

The results open the possibility that recent climate sensitivity estimates from global observations and [intermediate complexity models] are systematically considerably lower or higher than the truth, since they are typically based on the same realization of climate variability.»

The IPCC FAR ran simulations using models with climate sensitivities (the total amount of global surface warming in response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2, including amplifying and dampening feedbacks) of 1.5 °C (low), 2.5 °C (best), and 4.5 °C (high) for doubled CO2 (Figure 1).

However, because climate scientists at the time believed a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would cause a larger global heat imbalance than is currently believed, the actual climate sensitivities were approximatly 18 % lower (for example, the «Best» model sensitivity was actually closer to 2.1 °C for doubled CO2).

Interestingly, Penner et al. find that whether the climate sensitivity parameter is on the low or high end, reducing anthropogenic emissions of the short - lived warming pollutants would achieve a significant reduction in global warming over the next 50 - 100 years.

In some locations and among some groups of people with high exposure, high sensitivity and / or low adaptive capacity, net costs will be significantly larger than the global aggregate [20.6, 20.

Low sensitivity likely The very high complexity of IPCC Global Climate Models with Armstrong's findings infer that the IPCC's > 95 % confidence in > 50 % anthropogenic is «an illusion».

Much of the recent discussion of climate sensitivity in online forums and in peer - reviewed literature focuses on two areas: cutting off the so - called «long tail» of low probability \ high climate sensitivities (e.g., above 6 C or so), and reconciling the recent slowdown in observed surface warming with predictions from global climate models.

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).

In our on - going effort to keep up with the science, today we update our previous summary with two additional recently published lower - than - IPCC climate sensitivity estimates — one made by Troy Masters and another by Alexander Otto and colleagues (including several co-authors not typically associated with global warming in moderation, or «lukewarming»).