Sentences with phrase «on equilibrium climate sensitivity»

[17] Cox, P. M., C. Huntingford, and M. S. Williamson, 2018: Emergent constraint on equilibrium climate sensitivity from global temperature variability.

Part 1 of this article the nature and validity of emergent constraints [1] on equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) in GCMs were discussed, drawing mainly on the analysis and assessment of 19 such constraints in Caldwell et al. (2018), [2] who concluded that only four of them were credible.

There have been quite a number of papers published in recent years concerning «emergent constraints» on equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) in comprehensive global climate models (GCMs), of both the current (CMIP5) and previous (CMIP3) generations.

In Part 1 of this article the nature and validity of emergent constraints [1] on equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) in GCMs were discussed, drawing mainly on the analysis and assessment of 19 such constraints in Caldwell et al. (2018), [2] who concluded that only four of them were credible.

Evaluating Emergent Constraints on Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity.

Practically, more deep - ocean involvement does have an effect on equilibrium climate sensitivity, but it has a much larger effect on transient climate sensitivity (which is a more relevant parameter for discussions of anthropogenically forced climate change).

Imposing a flat prior on an observable property, such as the climate feedback or transient climate response, is equivalent to imposing a highly skewed prior on the equilibrium climate sensitivity, and therefore results in narrower posterior likelihood ranges on the climate sensitivity that exclude very high sensitivities.

«Climate sensitivity estimates are greatly impacted by such variability especially when the observed record is used to try to place limits on equilibrium climate sensitivity [Otto et al., 2013], and simply using the ORAS - 4 estimates of OHC changes in the 2000s instead of those used by Otto... changes their computed equilibrium climate sensitivity from 2.0 °C to 2.5 °C, for instance.

Our calculated global warming as a function of CO2 amount is based on equilibrium climate sensitivity 3 °C for doubled CO2.

Quantification of Climate System Responses: On equilibrium climate sensitivity, several delegations, including Australia, the Netherlands and others, noted that the message that the lower limit of the assessed «likely» range of climate sensitivity is less than the 2 °C in the AR4 can be confusing to policy makers and suggested noting it is the same as in previous assessments.

The main summary conclusion on equilibrium climate sensitivity is stated as follows:

The main summary conclusion on equilibrium climate sensitivity is stated as follows: Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 2 °C — 4.5 °C, and very likely above 1.5 °C.

By focusing soley on the equilibrium climate sensitivity, the authors do miss a lot of features important to people about the overall climate system — for example, what's the equilibrium sensitivity of the carbon cycle to the temperature change brought about by 2X CO2?

In Part 1 of this article the nature and validity of emergent constraints [i] on equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) in GCMs were discussed, drawing mainly on the analysis and assessment of 19 such constraints in Caldwell et al (2018; henceforth Caldwell), [ii] who concluded that only four of them were credible.

In Part 1 of this article the nature and validity of emergent constraints [1] on equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) in GCMs were discussed, drawing mainly on the analysis and assessment of 19 such constraints in Caldwell et al. (2018), [2] who concluded that only four of them were credible.

There have been quite a number of papers published in recent years concerning «emergent constraints» on equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) in comprehensive global climate models (GCMs), of both the current (CMIP5) and previous (CMIP3) generations.

Not exact matches

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.

The Hansen et al study (2004) on target atmospheric CO2 and climate sensitivity is quite clear on this topic: equilibrium responses would double the GCM - based estimates, with very little to be said about transient effects.

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.

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»

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.

Then on page 9.5 we read «There is very high confidence that the primary factor contributing to the spread in equilibrium climate sensitivity continues to be the cloud feedback.

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).

A few things are unequivocal, perhaps (doubling from the present concentration of CO2 will take 140 years [give or take]; the idea that the changes in climate since 1880 have been in the aggregate beneficial; it takes more energy to vaporize a kg of water than to raise its temperature by 1K; ignoring the energy cost of water and latent heat transport [in the hydrologic cycle] leads to equilibrium calculations overestimating the climate sensitivity), but most are propositions that I think need more research, but can't be refuted on present evidence.

While I'm posting (I can see how you guys get into this) I'm also very uncomfortable with your notion of «tacit knowledge:» it certainly seems to be tacit knowledge in the blogosphere that the chances of the climate sensitivity (equilibrium warming on indefinite stabilization at 560ppm CO2, for the non-enthusiasts) being greater than or equal to 6 degrees are too small to be worth worrying about (meaning down at the level of an asteroid strike).

Aslo, regarding climate sensitivity a very key thing to remember, especially if sensitivity turns out to be on the high side, is that the «final» equilibrium temperature (Alexi's concerns about there being such a thing aside) calculated from climate sensitivity does not take into account carbon cycle feedbacks OR ice sheet changes.

Equilibrium climate sensitivity describes how much the planet will warm if carbon dioxide levels were to double, and the Earth goes on to cope and stabilize to the new atmosphere.

Hegerl et al (2006) for example used comparisons during the pre-industrial of EBM simulations and proxy temperature reconstructions based entirely or partially on tree - ring data to estimate the equilibrium 2xCO2 climate sensitivity, arguing for a substantially lower 5 % -95 % range of 1.5 — 6.2 C than found in several previous studies.

Depending on meridional heat transport, when freezing temperatures reach deep enough towards low - latitudes, the ice - albedo feedback can become so effective that climate sensitivity becomes infinite and even negative (implying unstable equilibrium for any «ice - line» (latitude marking the edge of ice) between the equator and some other latitude).

part of the utility is that Charney sensitivity, using only relatively rapid feedbacks, describes the climate response to an externally imposed forcing change on a particular timescale related to the heat capacity of the system (if the feedbacks were sufficiniently rapid and the heat capacity independent of time scale (it's not largely because of oceanic circulation), an imbalance would exponentially decay on the time scale of heat capacity * Charney equilibrium climate sensitivity.

But I would suppose that equilibrium climate sensitivity [background] and even global mean surface temperature on a decadal scale could be better nailed down by model pruning and better ocean data.

Over very long time periods such that the carbon cycle is in equilibrium with the climate, one gets a sensitivity to global temperature of about 20 ppm CO2 / deg C, or 75 ppb CH4 / deg C. On shorter timescales, the sensitivity for CO2 must be less (since there is no time for the deep ocean to come into balance), and variations over the last 1000 years or so (which are less than 10 ppm), indicate that even if Moberg is correct, the maximum sensitivity is around 15 ppm CO2 / deg C. CH4 reacts faster, but even for short term excursions (such as the 8.2 kyr event) has a similar sensitivity.

New, relevant, readily available, and influential science on a topic considered to be a «key factor» in the determination of the SCC — the distribution of the estimated value of the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS)-- was not included in the 2013 SCC update used in the final rulemaking.

In this work the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is estimated based on observed near - surface temperature change from the instrumental record, changes in ocean heat content and detailed RF time series.

The wikipedia article on Climate Sensitivity states that the transient climate sensitivity is lower than equilibrium climate sensitivity which I do not quite undeClimate Sensitivity states that the transient climate sensitivity is lower than equilibrium climate sensitivity which I do not quite Sensitivity states that the transient climate sensitivity is lower than equilibrium climate sensitivity which I do not quite undeclimate sensitivity is lower than equilibrium climate sensitivity which I do not quite sensitivity is lower than equilibrium climate sensitivity which I do not quite undeclimate sensitivity which I do not quite sensitivity which I do not quite understand.

This Nature Climate Change paper concluded, based purely on simulations by the GISS - E2 - R climate model, that estimates of the transient climate response (TCR) and equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) based on observations over the historical period (~ 1850 to recent times) were biasClimate Change paper concluded, based purely on simulations by the GISS - E2 - R climate model, that estimates of the transient climate response (TCR) and equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) based on observations over the historical period (~ 1850 to recent times) were biasclimate model, that estimates of the transient climate response (TCR) and equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) based on observations over the historical period (~ 1850 to recent times) were biasclimate response (TCR) and equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) based on observations over the historical period (~ 1850 to recent times) were biasclimate sensitivity (ECS) based on observations over the historical period (~ 1850 to recent times) were biased low.

But of course the pace of the temperature trend also depends on the global future emissions outlook and on remaining uncertainties surrounding climate sensitivity — or the politically most relevant metric «Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity» (ECS), the amount of warming expected on a decades timescale after doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentclimate sensitivity — or the politically most relevant metric «Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity» (ECS), the amount of warming expected on a decades timescale after doubling of the atmospheric CO2 consensitivity — or the politically most relevant metric «Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity» (ECS), the amount of warming expected on a decades timescale after doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentClimate Sensitivity» (ECS), the amount of warming expected on a decades timescale after doubling of the atmospheric CO2 conSensitivity» (ECS), the amount of warming expected on a decades timescale after doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration.

The equilibrium climate sensitivity quantifies the response of the climate system to constant radiative forcing on multi-century time scales.

[7] Each individual estimate of the SCC is the realization of a Monte Carlo simulation based on a draw from an equilibrium climate sensitivity distribution to model the impact of CO2 emissions on temperature.

When I rephrased my question and gave some background to my reason for asking it, you went way outside your area of expertise and turned to stating your opinions (based on you ideological beliefs) about how much your tool says the planet will warm by 2100 (4.4 C you said based on 3.2 C equilibrium climate sensitivity).

Stevens, B., Sherwood, S. C., Bony, S. and Webb, M. J. (2016) «Prospects for narrowing bounds on Earth's equilibrium climate sensitivity», Earth's Future.

«The equilibrium climate sensitivity quantifies the response of the climate system to constant radiative forcing on multicentury time scales.

It also states, «No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.»

The three successive IPCC reports (1991 [2], 1996, and 2001 [3]-RRB- concentrated therefore, in addition to estimates of equilibrium sensitivity, on estimates of climate change over the 21st century, based on several scenarios of CO2 increase over this time interval, and using up to 18 general circulation models (GCMs) in the fourth IPCC Assessment Report (AR4)[4].

Note 16 «No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.»

And the gut feeling by IPCC is everything from a walk in the park to catastrophe: «The equilibrium climate sensitivity quantifies the response of the climate system to constant radiative forcing on multi - century time scales.

[¶]... Basing our assessment on a combination of several independent lines of evidence, as summarised in Box 10.2 Figures 1 and 2, including observed climate change and the strength of known feedbacks simulated in GCMs, we conclude that the global mean equilibrium warming for doubling CO2, or «equilibrium climate sensitivity», is likely to lie in the range 2 °C to 4.5 °C, with a most likely value of about 3 °C.

I asked you yesterday whether you were aware that two of the climate sensitivity PDFs in Figure 9.20 of the IPCC AR4 WG1 report were not in fact based on a uniform prior in equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS or S), despite it being stated in Table 9.3 that they were so based.

It focuses on the key measure, known as equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), which is used by climate scientists to make predictions.

This seems a good reason for erring on the side of caution, but doesn't seem a valid attack on climate scientists nor a reason to hype up short term equilibrium climate sensitivity which correctly avoids the issue by dealing with CO2 levels.