Sentences with phrase «of climate sensitivity studies»
But it does point to a number of climate sensitivity studies — empirical and otherwise — within the last few years.
https://hubpages.com/
Curry provides a highly biased and skewed overview of climate sensitivity studies, which makes sense for publication in the Wall Street Journal.
Not exact matches
Some studies of past climate, however, point to climate sensitivities of 6 °C or more.
Earlier studies on the sensitivity of tropical cyclones to past climates have only analyzed the effect of changes in the solar radiation from orbital forcing on the formation of tropical cyclones, without considering the feedbacks associated to the consequent greening of the Sahara.
«We may have to wait 20 or 30 years before the data set in the 21st century is good enough to pin down sensitivity,» says climate modeler Gavin Schmidt of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS).
At the same time, new studies of climate sensitivity — the amount of warming expected for a doubling of carbon dioxide levels from 0.03 to 0.06 percent in the atmosphere — have suggested that most models are too sensitive.
To estimate how much the sensitivity varies, Gary Russell of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and colleagues ran a climate model repeatedly.
«This is one of several recent studies that provide sobering evidence that earth's climate sensitivity may lie in the upper end of the current uncertainty range,» Mann said in an email.
Based on past observations, Held, who was not involved with the study, said the climate sensitivity of 5 °C or more shown by the new research may be implausible.
By studying the relationship between CO2 levels and climate change during a warmer period in Earth's history, the scientists have been able to estimate how the climate will respond to increasing levels of carbon dioxide, a parameter known as «climate sensitivity».
The sensitivity of leaf unfolding phenology to climate warming has significantly declined since 1980s, according to a study recently published in the journal Nature by an international collaboration of scientists.
«Thus it appears that the Pinatubo cooling favours high climate sensitivity,» say Hansen and his colleagues in a study for a forthcoming issue of the journal National Geographic Research and Exploration.
That study addressed a puzzle, namely that recent studies using the observed changes in Earth's surface temperature suggested climate sensitivity is likely towards the lower end of the estimated range.
The NGN article itself gives a good explanation of climate sensitivity and the various studies and estimates of it, and does quote Michael Schlesinger of the University of Illinois saying that Hegerl's result «means climate sensitivity is larger than we thought for 30 years, so the problem is worse than we thought.
Therefore studies based on observed warming have underestimated climate sensitivity as they did not account for the greater response to aerosol forcing, and multiple lines of evidence are now consistent in showing that climate sensitivity is in fact very unlikely to be at the low end of the range in recent estimates.
National Geographic News reports that this week's issue of Nature will publish a study from a team led by Gabriele Hegerl of Duke University which finds climate sensitivity of 1.5 º to 6.2 ºC, with a higher end somewhat higher than the standard range of 1.5 — 4.5 ºC.
Sure, there might be a few papers that take climate sensitivity as a given and somehow try to draw conclusions about the impact on the climate from that... But, I hardly think that these are swamping the number of papers trying to determine what the climate sensitivity is, studying if the water vapor feedback is working as expected, etc., etc..
Such studies can reasonably account for the observed variations as a response to solar and volcanic forcing (and a few secondary things) with energy balance climate models tuned to have a climate sensitivity equivalent to 2.5 C per doubling of CO2.
Therefore, I wouldn't attach much credence, if any, to a modelling study that didn't explore the range of possibilities arising from such uncertainty in parameter values, and particularly in the value of something as crucial as the climate sensitivity parameter, as in this example.
A summary of recent climate sensitivity studies can be found here.
Several studies have put the lower bound of climate sensitivity at about 1.5 °C, on the other hand, several others have found that a sensitivity higher than 4.5 °C can't be ruled out.
It is important to regard the LGM studies as just one set of points in the cloud yielded by other climate sensitivity estimates, but the LGM has been a frequent target because it was a period for which there is a lot of data from varied sources, climate was significantly different from today, and we have considerable information about the important drivers — like CO2, CH4, ice sheet extent, vegetation changes etc..
This is a 0.9 ºC reduction from the sensitivity of 2.5 °C estimated in that predecessor study, which used the same climate model.
Given that clouds are known to be the primary source of uncertainty in climate sensitivity, how much confidence can you place in a study based on a model that doesn't even attempt to simulate clouds?
One recent study examining the Palaeocene — Eocene Thermal Maximum (about 55 million years ago), during which the planet warmed 5 - 9 °C, found that «At accepted values for the climate sensitivity to a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration, this rise in CO2 can explain only between 1 and 3.5 °C of the warming inferred from proxy records» (Zeebe 2009).
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.
The IPCC AR4 (9.6: Observational Constraints on Climate Sensitivity) lists 13 studies (Table 9.3) that constrain climate sensitivity using various types of data, including two using LGClimate Sensitivity) lists 13 studies (Table 9.3) that constrain climate sensitivity using various types of data, including two usinSensitivity) lists 13 studies (Table 9.3) that constrain climate sensitivity using various types of data, including two using LGclimate sensitivity using various types of data, including two usinsensitivity using various types of data, including two using LGM data.
Absent understanding of cloud feedback processes, the best you can really do is mesh it into the definition of the emergent climate sensitivity, but I think probing (at least some of) the uncertainties in effects like this is one of the whole points of these ensemble - based studies.
They conclude, based on study of CMIP5 model output, that equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is not a fixed quantity — as temperatures increase, the response is nonlinear, with a smaller effective ECS in the first decades of the experiments, increasing over time.
These models all suggest potentially serious limitations for this kind of study: UVic does not simulate the atmospheric feedbacks that determine climate sensitivity in more realistic models, but rather fixes the atmospheric part of the climate sensitivity as a prescribed model parameter (surface albedo, however, is internally computed).
My main criticism of their study is that they have calculated effective climate sensitivity (their ICS) on a basis which is wrong for ICS in GCMs; their basis is also inconsistent with observationally - based estimates of ICS.
The study of past warm climates may not narrow uncertainty in future climate projections in coming centuries because fast climate sensitivity may itself be state - dependent» http://www.pnas.org/content/110/35/14162.full
Inverse estimates of aerosol forcing from detection and attribution studies and studies estimating equilibrium climate sensitivity (see Section 9.6 and Table 9.3 for details on studies).
d Explores IPCC TAR range of climate sensitivity (i.e., 1.5 °C to 4.5 °C), while other studies explore wider ranges
Climate model studies and empirical analyses of paleoclimate data can provide estimates of the amplification of climate sensitivity caused by slow feedbacks, excluding the singular mechanisms that caused the hyperthermal Climate model studies and empirical analyses of paleoclimate data can provide estimates of the amplification of climate sensitivity caused by slow feedbacks, excluding the singular mechanisms that caused the hyperthermal climate sensitivity caused by slow feedbacks, excluding the singular mechanisms that caused the hyperthermal events.
«We indicated 23 years ago — in our 1994 Nature article — that climate models had the atmosphere's sensitivity to CO2 much too high,» said Christy, the lead author in the study, which has been accepted for publication in the 2017 fourth quarter edition of the Asia - Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences and is available online.
Other AgMIP initiatives include global gridded modeling, data and information technology (IT) tool development, simulation of crop pests and diseases, site - based crop - climate sensitivity studies, and aggregation and scaling.
National Geographic News reports that this week's issue of Nature will publish a study from a team led by Gabriele Hegerl of Duke University which finds climate sensitivity of 1.5 º to 6.2 ºC, with a higher end somewhat higher than the standard range of 1.5 — 4.5 ºC.
The aim of this study is to investigate the impact of small - scale atmospheric fluctuations on the modeled climate sensitivity to increased CO2 concentration.
One can temper that with studies of paleoclimate sensitivity, but the ensemble results still should be borne in mind, since doubling CO2 takes us into a climate that has no real precendent in the part of the climate record which has been used for exploring model sensitivity, and in many regards may not have any real precedent in the entire history of the planet (in terms of initial condition and rapidity of GHG increase).
Actually Olson et al's abstract states «Our results are consistent with most previous studies» and «The mode of the climate sensitivity estimate is 2.8 °C, with the corresponding 95 % credible interval ranging from 1.8 to 4.9 °C» (which supports the first quote).
The NGN article itself gives a good explanation of climate sensitivity and the various studies and estimates of it, and does quote Michael Schlesinger of the University of Illinois saying that Hegerl's result «means climate sensitivity is larger than we thought for 30 years, so the problem is worse than we thought.
eg «These studies provide new insights on the sensitivity and response of meridional ocean circulation to melt water inputs to the North Atlantic high latitudes (e.g., Bamberg et al., 2010; Irvali et al., 2012; Morley et al., 2011) and their potential role in amplifying small radiative variations into large a climate response through dynamic changes in ocean - atmosphere interactions (e.g., Morely et al., 2011; Irvali et al., 2012; Morley et al., 2014).
Finally, there is no good reason to widen the range, even though some studies have pointed to the possibility of higher climate sensitivity — but as we have discussed here, they did not provide positive evidence for a higher climate sensitivity, they merely showed that the data constraints used were weak.
But what the GSL now says is that geological evidence from palaeoclimatology (studies of past climate change) suggests that if longer - term factors are taken into account, such as the decay of large ice sheets, the Earth's sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 could itself be double that predicted by most climate models.
Based on many studies covering a wide range of regions and crops, negative impacts of climate change on crop yields have been more common than positive impacts (high confidence)... Since AR4, several periods of rapid food and cereal price increases following climate extremes in key producing regions indicate a sensitivity of current markets to climate extremes among other factors (medium confidence).
Do you think that in the same way that the Solanki et al paper on solar sunspot reconstructions had a specific statement that their results did not contradict ideas of strong greenhouse warming in recent decades, this (the fact that climate sensitivity projections are not best estimates of possible future actual temperature increases) should be clearly noted in media releases put out by scientists when reporting climate sensitivity studies?
Hence, we feel that the most important result of the study of Stainforth et al. is that by far most of the models had climate sensitivities between 2ºC and 4ºC, giving additional support to the widely accepted range (Update: As mentioned in the follow up post, this clustering is mainly a function of the sensitivity of the original model and the random nature of the perturbations).
«The closest match, with a much lower degree of uncertainty than most other studies, suggests climate sensitivity is about 2.4 degrees.»
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.