Sentences with phrase «of uncertainty in climate sensitivity»

Lindzen isn't highlighting that the large uncertainty in aerosol effects is responsible for much of the uncertainty in climate sensitivity estimates: he's making an unjustified claim that the aerosol negative forcing is small.

Limited understanding of clouds is the major source of uncertainty in climate sensitivity, but it also contributes substantially to persistent biases in modelled circulation systems.

We have to consider one more aspect of uncertainty in climate sensitivity.

Yeah, they're keeping that a huge secret: Section 8.6.3.2 of AR4 is called «Clouds,» and contains the statement «cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty in climate sensitivity estimates.»

As we've discussed before (and is well known), clouds are the greatest source of uncertainty in climate sensitivity.

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?

Not exact matches

As the Climate Science Special Report states, the magnitude of future climate change depends significantly on «remaining uncertainty in the sensitivity of Earth's climate to [greenhouse gas] emissions,»» White House spokesperson Raj Shah said Friday in a staClimate Science Special Report states, the magnitude of future climate change depends significantly on «remaining uncertainty in the sensitivity of Earth's climate to [greenhouse gas] emissions,»» White House spokesperson Raj Shah said Friday in a staclimate change depends significantly on «remaining uncertainty in the sensitivity of Earth's climate to [greenhouse gas] emissions,»» White House spokesperson Raj Shah said Friday in a staclimate to [greenhouse gas] emissions,»» White House spokesperson Raj Shah said Friday in a statement.

It tries to turn a major factor in the uncertainty in climate sensitivity estimates — the behavior of clouds — into a strength.

That uncertainty is represented in the latest crop of global climate models, which assume a climate sensitivity of anywhere from about 3 to 8 degrees F.

«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.

Here we show how a factor of three uncertainty in climate sensitivity introduces even greater uncertainty in allowable increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration and allowable CO2 emissions.

On time - scales of a few decades, the current observed rate of warming can be used to constrain the projected response to a given emissions scenario despite uncertainty in climate sensitivity.

The simple question of whether the medieval period was warm or cold is not particularly interesting — given the uncertainty in the forcings (solar and volcanic) and climate sensitivity, any conceivable temperature anomaly (which remember is being measured in tenths of a degree) is unlikely to constrain anything.

I agree (as does IPCC) that there is uncertainty, as stated, in the climate sensitivity, but you are completely unjustified in your claim that the cosmic - ray correlation (for which there is still no sound physical basis or quantified mechanism) supports the lower end of the sensitivity range.

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.

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.

The top priorities should be reducing uncertainties in climate sensitivity, getting a better understanding of the effect of climate change on atmospheric circulation (critical for understanding of regional climate change, changes in extremes) and reducing uncertainties in radiative forcing — particularly those associated with aerosols.

They got 10 pages in Science, which is a lot, but in it they cover radiation balance, 1D and 3D modelling, climate sensitivity, the main feedbacks (water vapour, lapse rate, clouds, ice - and vegetation albedo); solar and volcanic forcing; the uncertainties of aerosol forcings; and ocean heat uptake.

However, in view of the fact that cloud feedbacks are the dominant contribution to uncertainty in climate sensitivity, the fact that the energy balance model used by Schmittner et al can not compute changes in cloud radiative forcing is particularly serious.

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.

It is not all that earthshaking that the numbers in Schmittner et al come in a little low: the 2.3 ºC is well within previously accepted uncertainty, and three of the IPCC AR4 models used for future projections have a climate sensitivity of 2.3 ºC or lower, so that the range of IPCC projections already encompasses this possibility.

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

By scaling spatio - temporal patterns of response up or down, this technique takes account of gross model errors in climate sensitivity and net aerosol forcing but does not fully account for modelling uncertainty in the patterns of temperature response to uncertain forcings.

Unfortunately for policymakers and the public, while the basic science pointing to a rising human influence on climate is clear, many of the most important questions will remain surrounded by deep complexity and uncertainty for a long time to come: the pace at which seas will rise, the extent of warming from a certain buildup of greenhouse gases (climate sensitivity), the impact on hurricanes, the particular effects in particular places (what global warming means for Addis Ababa or Atlanta).

We look to the real world and the paleo record to constrain those aspects of the climate system that have non-negligible uncertainties (most often climate sensitivities in a general sense).

(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.

Probabilistic estimates of transient climate sensitivity subject to uncertainty in forcing and natural variability.

(This large uncertainty essentially due to the uncertainty in the aerosol forcing; it is also the main reason why the magnitude of global dimming has little or no implication for climate sensitivity).

It is my understanding that the uncertainties regarding climate sensitivity to a nominal 2XCO2 forcing is primarily a function of the uncertainties in (1) future atmospheric aerosol concentrations; both sulfate - type (cooling) and black carbon - type (warming), (2) feedbacks associated with aerosol effects on the properties of clouds (e.g. will cloud droplets become more reflective?)

Both issues touch on the issue of uncertainty, in particular, the uncertainty in the global climate sensitivity.

Uncertainty in climate sensitivity is not going to disappear any time soon, and should therefore be built into assessments of future climate.

This is enough to matter, but it's no more scary than the uncertainty in cloud feedbacks for example, and whether they could put us on the high end of typical climate sensitivity estimates.

It's the people who like curiosity - driven research in climate dynamics who have the real incentive to argue that there's a lot of uncertainty, because uncertainty allows people with strong intellectual curiosity to make the case that there's at least some tangential benefit of their work to the climate sensitivity problem.

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

The IPCC range, on the other hand, encompasses the overall uncertainty across a very large number of studies, using different methods all with their own potential biases and problems (e.g., resulting from biases in proxy data used as constraints on past temperature changes, etc.) There is a number of single studies on climate sensitivity that have statistical uncertainties as small as Cox et al., yet different best estimates — some higher than the classic 3 °C, some lower.

If climate senstivity to CO2 is eventually shown (rather than just assumed) to be close to the sensitivity to solar, I think a case can then be made that the GHG attribution should be equal or higher than the solar attribution, despite the large uncertainty in our knowledge of the increase in solar forcing.

The agreement of this model with observations is particularly good and perhaps partly fortuitous, given that there is still uncertainty both in the climate sensitivity and in the amplitudes of the aerosol and solar forcings.

There is uncertainty in the climate sensitivity of the Earth and in the response of the carbon cycle, and the papers are extremely useful in the way that they propagate these uncertainties to the probabilities of different amounts of warming.

With an honest appraisal of the full uncertainty, also in the forcing, one must come to the conclusion that such a short period is not sufficient to draw conclusions about the climate sensitivity.

Unfortunately, there are many factors that preclude an effective bound on the risks — ranging from uncertainties in downscaling to more fundamental issues such as the uncertainty of climate sensitivity.

There's no real progress in our evaluation of climate sensitivity, rather the demonstration that real progress will be very difficut to reach (worse even, the range should enlarge as we include more and more parameters for evaluation of f, so more and more uncertainty because each new parameter will have its own distribution of probability).

They got 10 pages in Science, which is a lot, but in it they cover radiation balance, 1D and 3D modelling, climate sensitivity, the main feedbacks (water vapour, lapse rate, clouds, ice - and vegetation albedo); solar and volcanic forcing; the uncertainties of aerosol forcings; and ocean heat uptake.

All reputable scientists in this area know and acknowledge that there remain uncertainties with respect to climate sensitivity (how warm, how fast in response to a given level of GHGs)-- indeed that's where most of the research is going — along with a better understanding of the speed of impacts (e.g. ice loss).

Because the net effect of clouds — whilst still one of the major sources of uncertainty in relation to climate sensitivity is likely a positive feedback

Such a description is not totally accurate, but certainly accurate enough to make the remaining uncertainty a minor factor in uncertainties of the full climate sensitivity.

I mainly study responses of tropical low - clouds to perturbations since they induce the largest uncertainties in climate models and explain a significant part of the spread of climate sensitivity.

Sensitivity of the climate to carbon dioxide, and the level of uncertainty in its value, is a key input into the economic models that drive cost - benefit analyses, including estimates of the social cost of carbon.

The magnitude of climate change beyond the next few decades will depend primarily on the amount of greenhouse (heat - trapping) gases emitted globally and on the remaining uncertainty in the sensitivity of Earth's climate to those emissions (very high confidence).

How is the persistent factor of 3 uncertainty in climate sensitivity consistent with the IPCC confidence levels?

The sensitivity of the climate system to an imposed radiative imbalance remains the largest source of uncertainty in projections of future anthropogenic climate change.