Sentences with phrase «modeled sensitivity less»

The policies desired by green advocates become much less likely to be adopted if lower sensitivity is credible (and modeled sensitivity less so).

Not exact matches

He said that sensitivity includes water vapour and arctic sea ice, but I suspect that the changes in sea ice in the models are much less than we are seeing in practice.

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.

Forecast temperature trends for time scales of a few decades or less are not very sensitive to the model's equilibrium climate sensitivity (reference provided).

Lindzen and Giannitsis (2002) pose the hypothesis that the rapid change in tropospheric (850 — 300 hPa) temperatures around 1976 triggered a delayed response in surface temperature that is best modelled with a climate sensitivity of less than 1 °C.

This is consistent with the model estimates, and provides a severe test for those who would argue that the sensitivity is much less (say < 1 deg C).

(in general, whether for future projections or historical reconstructions or estimates of climate sensitivity, I tend to be sympathetic to arguments of more rather than less uncertainty because I feel like in general, models and statistical approaches are not exhaustive and it is «plausible» that additional factors could lead to either higher or lower estimates than seen with a single approach.

However, a model that yields a sensitivity less than 2 is very unlikely to yield insight into the climate because it simply doesn't look like Earth.

Climate sensitivity to doubling of CO2 is among the best determined parameters — it's very hard to get models to work with a sensitivity less than 2 or more than 5 to look anything like Earth.

There is a «model» which has a certain sensitivity to 2xCO2 (that is either explicitly set in the formulation or emergent), and observations to which it can be compared (in various experimental setups) and, if the data are relevant, models with different sensitivities can be judged more or less realistic (or explicitly fit to the data).

In fact it is the opposite — Hansen is actually claiming that the uncertainty in models (for instance, in the climate sensitivity) is now less than the uncertainty in the emissions scenarios (i.e. it is the uncertainty in the forcings, that drives the uncertainty in the projections).

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.

«Forecast temperature trends for time scales of a few decades or less are not very sensitive to the model's equilibrium climate sensitivity (reference provided).

We simply don't know what the effect of doubling CO2 will have but there must be many models which work as well or better than current models which show far less sensitivity to CO2.

If Vaughn's model can be tweaked to generate a great fit with zero climate sensitivity it should take even less diddling (and fewer parameters) to get a fit with 1.1 C.

forcing much less than generally assumed), then you would get a good match with obs using models with a lower - end sensitivity.

However, I am not a «warmista» by any means — we do not know how to properly quantify the albedo of aerosols, including clouds, with their consequent negative feedback effects in any of the climate sensitivity models as yet — and all models in the ensemble used by the «warmistas» are indicating the sensitivities (to atmospheric CO2 increase) are too high, by factors ranging from 2 to 4: which could indicate that climate sensitivity to a doubling of current CO2 concentrations will be of the order of 1 degree C or less outside the equatorial regions (none or very little in the equatorial regions)- i.e. an outcome which will likely be beneficial to all of us.

Empirical — n.b. not model - derived — determinations indicate climate sensitivity is less than 1.0deg.C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent.

Empirical — n.b. not model - derived — determinations indicate climate sensitivity is less than 1.0 °C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent.

You claim such a justification from the coincidence that the 1 % to 3 % increase in evaporation seen across the models yields a range of climate sensitivities more or less in line with the IPCC range.

Then an average sensitivity based on the latitudinal trends being 1.48 C per doubling might be some indication of future response to CO2, which appears to be somewhat less than 0.2 C per, though still within the confidence interval of the model predictions, just closer to scenario C.

In simulations of the warmer climate reached after quadrupling carbon dioxide concentrations, higher - sensitivity (HS) models project a reduction of TLC reflection, whereas lower - sensitivity (LS) models project less change or even an increase.

The paper confirms that realworld observations can be matched by a linear feedback model with a climate sensitivity of something less than1.6 deg K / doubling of CO2.

The method preferred by the GWPF report, and that which Lewis has used in his own papers, involves estimating climate sensitivity using a combination of recent instrumental temperature data (including ocean heat content data), less complex climate models, and statistics.

Although the first two sources of model uncertainty - different climate sensitivities and regional climate change patterns - are usually represented in climate scenarios, it is less common for the third and fourth sources of uncertainty - the variable signal - to - noise ratio and incomplete description of key processes and feedbacks - to be effectively treated.

L&S estimate the equilibrium climate sensitivity to doubled CO2 from their model at «about 1 - 1.5 °C or less».

My suggestion was that the models that show less sensitivity should be given more weight because of the lack of warming.

From the observed behavior, he was able to determine the climate sensitivity, and found it to be substantially less than that in the vast majority of the climate models.

Models with more expansive climatological Hadley cells tend to warm this region less or not at all, and tend to have relatively lower climate sensitivities.

The main problem with current climate models is the equal sensitivity for equal forcings as assumed in the models: 1 W / m2 more solar has (more or less) the same effect as 1 W / m2 more retainment of IR by GHGs.

Schwartz (2004) notes that the intermodel spread in modeled temperature trend expressed as a fractional standard deviation is much less than the corresponding spread in either model sensitivity or aerosol forcing, and this comparison does not consider differences in solar and volcanic forcing.

This range in climate sensitivity is attributable to differences in the strength of «radiative feedbacks» between models and is one of the reasons why projections of future climate change are less certain than policy makers would like.

If this feedback is, in fact, substantially weaker than predicted in current models, sensitivities in the upper half of this range would be much less likely, a conclusion that would clearly have important policy implications.

From AR5: «The resulting equilibrium temperature response to a doubling of CO2 on millennial time scales or Earth system sensitivity is less well constrained but likely to be larger than ECS...» See also ``... medium confidence that Earth - system sensitivity may be up to two times the model equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS).»