Sentences with phrase «on a climate sensitivity of»

FWIW, we found an upper limit on climate sensitivity of about 6C, but apparently that also isn't sexy enough to publish cos everyone knew it already.

As for Hansen's scenarios, emissions have followed Hansen's scenario B, so observations should be compared to scenario B not A. Hansen's projections were based on a climate sensitivity of over 4C.

The truth of the matter is that IPCC's CAGW premise as stated in AR4, which is based on a climate sensitivity of 3.2 C, is not supported by empirical scientific evidence (Feynman)

Overall we are closely tracking Scenario B, with Hansen's temperature predictions, based on a climate sensitivity of 4C, running slightly hot.

However, the relative influence on climate sensitivity of these feedbacks has not been quantified.

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.

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.

Climate sensitivity depends on a number of properties of the earth's climate system, such as the composition of clouds and cloudClimate sensitivity depends on a number of properties of the earth's climate system, such as the composition of clouds and cloudclimate system, such as the composition of clouds and cloud cover.

The conclusion that limiting CO2 below 450 ppm will prevent warming beyond two degrees C is based on a conservative definition of climate sensitivity that considers only the so - called fast feedbacks in the climate system, such as changes in clouds, water vapor and melting sea ice.

A leaked draft copy of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's fifth assessment report (AR5) surfaced earlier this summer and triggered a small tempest among climate bloggers, scientists and skeptics over revelations that a key metric, called the «Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity» (ECS), had been revised doClimate Change's fifth assessment report (AR5) surfaced earlier this summer and triggered a small tempest among climate bloggers, scientists and skeptics over revelations that a key metric, called the «Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity» (ECS), had been revised doclimate bloggers, scientists and skeptics over revelations that a key metric, called the «Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity» (ECS), had been revised doClimate Sensitivity» (ECS), had been revised downward.

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.

The group hopes other scientists will conduct similar experiments using different models to help hone in on a more reliable measure of climate sensitivity.

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.

On previous estimates of the climate sensitivity, that is far too late.

The research also appears to solve one of the great unknowns of climate sensitivity, the role of cloud formation and whether this will have a positive or negative effect on global warming.

Scientists have revealed the impact of clouds on climate sensitivity.

«My view on this is that the research needs to broaden out to have more of a focus on variability more generally so that a) we can predict the next few years better b) we can refine our estimates of the sensitivity of the climate system to increases in greenhouse gas concentrations.»

The whole CAGW — GHG scare is based on the obvious fallacy of putting the effect before the cause.As a simple (not exact) analogy controlling CO2 levels to control temperature is like trying to lower the temperature of an electric hot plate under a boiling pan of water by capturing and sequestering the steam coming off the top.A corollory to this idea is that the whole idea of a simple climate sensitivity to CO2 is nonsense and the sensitivity equation has no physical meaning unless you already know what the natural controls on energy inputs are already ie the extent of the natural variability.

According to Meng, the results suggest that if we are to reduce climate losses on manufacturing output, adaptation measures should not focus solely on reducing the sensitivity of workers to extreme heat, but also that of factory machines.

«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).

If that is so, then the future rise (on a climate sensitivity figure of 2degC) would be a further 1.2 degC.

The data is only 33 years in length, but based on that data, there is no first order correlation between temperature and CO2 during its 33 year period and this suggests that then signal to CO2 (ie., Climate Sensitivity) is so low that it can not be measured within the sensitivity, resolution and errors of our best current temperature meSensitivity) is so low that it can not be measured within the sensitivity, resolution and errors of our best current temperature mesensitivity, resolution and errors of our best current temperature measurements.

A couple of other WUWT posts I found worth mentioning on Climate Sensitivity.

Olson, R., et al. «What is the effect of unresolved internal climate variability on climate sensitivity estimates?.»

On the face of it the range of the IPCC models is centrally within the A&H 90 % range, but visual inspection of Figure 1 suggests that A&H find that there is about a 45 % probability that climate sensitivity is below the lower end of the range quoted by Meehl in August 2004 (Of course the IPCC draft report, which I have not seen, may include models with lower sensitivity than 2.6 ºCof it the range of the IPCC models is centrally within the A&H 90 % range, but visual inspection of Figure 1 suggests that A&H find that there is about a 45 % probability that climate sensitivity is below the lower end of the range quoted by Meehl in August 2004 (Of course the IPCC draft report, which I have not seen, may include models with lower sensitivity than 2.6 ºCof the IPCC models is centrally within the A&H 90 % range, but visual inspection of Figure 1 suggests that A&H find that there is about a 45 % probability that climate sensitivity is below the lower end of the range quoted by Meehl in August 2004 (Of course the IPCC draft report, which I have not seen, may include models with lower sensitivity than 2.6 ºCof Figure 1 suggests that A&H find that there is about a 45 % probability that climate sensitivity is below the lower end of the range quoted by Meehl in August 2004 (Of course the IPCC draft report, which I have not seen, may include models with lower sensitivity than 2.6 ºCof the range quoted by Meehl in August 2004 (Of course the IPCC draft report, which I have not seen, may include models with lower sensitivity than 2.6 ºCOf course the IPCC draft report, which I have not seen, may include models with lower sensitivity than 2.6 ºC).

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.

Climate skeptics tried to embrace Ruddiman simply because his views differed from conventional models — even though on the side of much greater sensitivity to human intervention.

The «equilibrium» sensitivity of the global surface temperature to solar irradiance variations, which is calculated simply by dividing the absolute temperature on the earth's surface (288K) by the solar constant (1365Wm - 2), is based on the assumption that the climate response is linear in the whole temperature band starting at the zero point.

Monckton published an article on climate sensitivity in a newsletter of the American Physical Society.

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.

Likewise, we find that natural variability, this last decade warming on the low end compared previous decades, the lack of coverage in the Arctic and so on may have played a role in Lewis» underestimating transient climate sensitivity:

The problem there is it is very difficult to have that discussion without at least broad agreement on climate sensitivity and the cost of inaction.

From the paper...» These results provide enhanced confidence in the range of climate sensitivity in climate simulations, which are based on a positive uppertropospheric water vapor feedback.

If you want to estimate climate sensitivity to doubling CO2, don't you need to estimate as precisely as possible the direct and indirect effects of each forcing on temperature trends?

While I have a better understanding than most on issues related to climate sensitivity, I would benefit from a direct, clear discussion of the relative importance of the forcing agents as they relate to the temperature record.

Rogelj, Joeri, et al. «Implications of potentially lower climate sensitivity on climate projections and policy.»

My only point on the paper was that the estimates of climate sensitivity therein had been relied upon in the Stern discussion papers.

First, it probably needs to be made clearer that generally speaking radiative forcing and climate sensitivity are useful constructs that apply to a subsystem of the climate and are valid only for restricted timescales — the atmosphere and upper ocean on multi-decadal periods.

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..

The calculations of prospective warming in the OXONIA lecture and the accompanying discussion papers are based on the new climate sensitivity estimates by Murphy et al which were published in Nature, 12 August 2004, vol.

And the political debate of mitigation or adaptation surely hinges on the science, eg on climate sensitivity.

As for the points Ferdinand makes in his (large) comment, I still contend that Ferdinand is misinterpreting the work on climate sensitivity to various forcings, and the need to make the sensitivity inference consistent with what we know about the physics of the system.

In addition, past data can be used to provide independent estimates of climate sensitivity, which provide a reality check on the models.

However, even if we're lucky and the climate sensitivity is just 2 °C for doubled atmospheric CO2, if we continue on our current emissions path, we will commit ourselves to that amount of warming (2 °C above pre-industrial levels) within the next 75 years.

Note that the last remark can go either way, as the solar signal can even be more enhanced at the cost of the sensitivity for the greenhouse signal... And from Hansen ea.: «Solar irradiance change has a strong spectral dependence [Lean, 2000], and resulting climate changes may include indirect effects of induced ozone change [RFCR; Haigh, 1999; Shindell et al., 1999a] and conceivably even cosmic ray effects on clouds [Dickinson, 1975].

This changing climate sensitivity may be the result of other environmental factors that have, since the 1950s, increasingly acted to reduce tree - ring density below the level expected on the basis of summer temperature changes.

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).

For example, Gerlich and Tscheuschner (on the greenhouse effect) and Schwartz (on climate sensitivity) are given space out of all proportion with their scientific accomplishments, while mainstream researchers are given comparatively short shrift or completely ignored (case in point: James Annan on climate sensitivity).

From the article: «The most likely value of equilibrium climate sensitivity based on the energy budget of the most recent decade is 2.0 °C, with a 5 — 95 % confidence interval of 1.2 — 3.9 °C»

That's the same value for climate sensitivity I've seen from the string theory physics site and from knowledgeable climate sites as well — it's the number people get this way: calculated in the absence of any feedback, on the hypothetical twinning of each molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere to make two where there were one, instantly, and having nothing else happen.