Sentences with phrase «of higher climate sensitivity»

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.

Given the number of ways that things can go wrong with continued CO2 emissions (from ocean acidfication and sea level rise to simple warming, shifting precipitation patterns, release of buried carbon in perma - frost, and the possibility of higher climate sensitivities — which seem to be needed to account for glacial / inter-glacial transitions), crossing our fingers and carrying on with BAU seems nothing short of crazy to me.

The political «solution» is: Unsupported claims of large aerosol increases which allows the fiction of the a high climate sensitivity to be maintained, leading to alarming and false predictions of catastropic future warming.

Which forms the basis for the IPCC claim of high climate sensitivity (mean value of 3.2 C), resulting in significant global warming (up to 6.4 C warming by 2100), «extreme high sea levels», increased «heat waves», increased «heavy rains» and floods, increased «droughts», increased «intense tropical cyclones» — which, in turn, lead to crop failures, disappearance of glaciers now supplying drinking water to millions, increased vector borne diseases, etc. (for short, potentially catastrophic AGW — or «CAGW»).

The very long tail of that distribution reflects partly poor data constraints and partly the use of a uniform prior for climate sensitivity, which biases upwards the reported probability of high climate sensitivities.

Because of the assumption of high climate sensitivity.

Yet you continue to say that orbital forcing causing glacial / interglacial transitions is proof of high climate sensitivity.

More relevant to the risk of high climate sensitivity, the 5 — 95 % confidence interval for FG - 2006 is 1.1 — 3.3 C.

This noble enterprise has resulted in fame, a Nobel Prize, moral and political power, and funding to scientists and science departments worldwide whose work supports the thesis of high climate sensitivity and likely castastrophic global catastrophic global warming.

Zhai, C., J. H. Jiang, and H. Su, 2015: Long - term cloud change imprinted in seasonal cloud variation: More evidence of high climate sensitivity.

Basically, the comments state that neither numbers 1 or 2 above are arguments any climate scientists are using and, further, just to demonstrate what a silly straw - man - erector I am, they were never used as proof of high climate sensitivity to CO2.

Not exact matches

The Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve in California is one of four estuaries that experiences a high level of climate sensitivity.

Given the high sensitivity inherent in tornado formation and the lack of any clear pattern in tornado events, scientists have been cautious in linking the storms to climate change in any way.

The model had a fairly high climate sensitivity to begin with, predicting a warming of 5.15 °C.

When the scientists compared the output of climate models with a decade of satellite measurements of relative humidity, they found that the models that best reproduced observed conditions were built on the premise that climate sensitivity is relatively high — 7 degrees F or more.

«When the processes are correct in the climate models the level of climate sensitivity is far higher.

«Based on the satellite data gathered, we can identify areas that, over the past 14 years, have shown high sensitivity to climate variability,» says researcher Alistair Seddon at the Department of Biology at the University of Bergen (UiB).

«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.

If they would use a more realistic climate transfer sensitivity of 0.11 K / Wm -2, or even somewhat higher (0.12 or 0.13) for the long - term, and use trends instead of smooth curve points, they would end up with solar contributions of 10 % or less for 1950 - 2000 and near 0 % and about 10 % in 1980 - 2000 using the PMOD and ACRIM data, respectively.

If the high climate sensitivity effect of the ice ages is a result of the hysteresis effect as proposed by Oerlemans and Van den Dool (1978), then the present observed sensitivity of 1K / 2xCO2 can not be much higher.

In essence, I was using my informed prior beliefs to assess the likelihood of a new claim that climate sensitivity could be really high or low.

My guess is higher climate sensitivity is part of the story but not all.

While there was a lot of interesting science in this paper (the new methodology, the range of results etc.) which fully justified its appearance in Nature, we were quite critical of their basic conclusion — that climate sensitivities significantly higher than the standard range (1.5 — 4.5 ºC) were plausible — because there is significant other data, predominantly from paleo - climate, that pretty much rule those high numbers out (as we discussed again recently).

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.

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.

Thus it is very important to know what the real impact of historical solar changes is, as 0.1 K in the past, results in climate sensitivity for anthropogenic at the high end, while 0.9 K results in a very low effect of anthropogenic, if the instrumental temperature trend of the last 1.5 century is used as reference.

A 2015 USDA report (Brown et al. 2015) on how climate affects agriculture delineates the sensitivities of specialty crops to many climate components (e.g., temperatures, atmospheric CO2 levels, water supply, cloud and light conditions, high winds and other extreme conditions).

Note that the old GISS model had a climate sensitivity that was a little higher (4.2 ºC for a doubling of CO2) than the best estimate (~ 3ºC) and as stated in previous years, the actual forcings that occurred are not the same as those used in the different scenarios.

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.»

They should be asked directly such questions as (1) Are they now saying that high levels of climate sensitivity are not possible, or (2) Are they now saying that some of the climate surprises including more rapid releases of carbon from the stored carbon are not possible.

Hansen's model assumed a rather high climate sensitivity of 4.2 °C for a doubling of CO2.

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.

All this discussion of the Schmittner et al paper should not distract from the point that Hansen and others (including RichardC in # 40 and William P in # 24) try to make: that there seems to be a significant risk that climate sensitivity could be on the higher end of the various ranges, especially if we include the slower feedbacks and take into account that these could kick in faster than generally assumed.

The Transient Contrarian Response, as expected, is high when there is any mention of climate sensitivity being not as high as it might be.

Whether the observed solar cycle in surface temperature is as large as.17 K (as in Camp and Tung) or more like.1 K (many previous estimates) is somewhat more in doubt, as is their interpretation in terms of low thermal inertia and high climate sensitivity in energy balance models.

For example, we know the past CO2 radiative forcing to very high accuracy, but there are more uncertainties in the aerosol forcing; applying a consistent climate sensitivity to both CO2 and aerosols, you can get a match to the observed record for a range of different supposed aerosol forcings, but you can't take it too far.

Ipso facto, climate sensitivity is at the high end, so discussions of anything else are so much number - crunching.

However, there has been a bit of confusion generated though through the work of climateprediction.net — the multi-thousand member perturbed parameter ensembles that, notoriously, suggested that climate sensitivity could be as high as 11 ºC in a paper a couple of years back.

It seems to me we should use the higher values for climate sensitivity, including the slower feedbacks, for a complete assessment of risks upto the seventh generation, so to speak.

Using Mg / Ca paleothermometry from the planktonic foraminifera Globigerinoides ruber from the past 500 k.y. at Ocean Drilling Program (ODP) Site 871 in the western Pacific warm pool, we estimate the tropical Pacific climate sensitivity parameter (λ) to be 0.94 — 1.06 °C (W m − 2) − 1, higher than that predicted by model simulations of the Last Glacial Maximum or by models of doubled greenhouse gas concentration forcing.

Forest et al. (2006) demonstrate that the inclusion of natural forcing affects the estimated PDF of climate sensitivity since net negative natural forcing in the second half of the 20th century favours higher sensitivities than earlier results that disregarded natural forcing (Forest et al., 2002; see Figure 9.20), particularly if the same ocean warming estimates were used.

This empirical climate sensitivity is generally consistent with that of global climate models [1], but the empirical approach makes the inferred high sensitivity more certain and the quantitative evaluation more precise.

«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.

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.

I would also bet that Hansen's estimate of climate sensitivity at 3 degrees Centigrade is too high.

If the high climate sensitivity effect of the ice ages is a result of the hysteresis effect as proposed by Oerlemans and Van den Dool (1978), then the present observed sensitivity of 1K / 2xCO2 can not be much higher.

Well I find it sort of amusing (and a little tragic) that climate scientists (at least the blogger ones) are patting themselves on the back over their high standards of a press release that will just focus on the mundane «we also show a 3K sensitivity as most likely.»

(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.

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).

(c) Our current climate models can not replicate the relatively high climate sensitivities, and Arctic Amplifications, of Super Interglacial periods, which are most relevant to our future in 2100;