Sentences with phrase «overall climate sensitivity»

-- Lindzen & Choi (2009/2011) show a low overall climate sensitivity (overall negative feedback) based on CERES satellite observations

Cloud responses are more uncertain and that feeds in to the uncertainty in overall climate sensitivity — but the range in the AR4 models (2.1 to 4.5 deg C for 2xCO2) can't yet be constrained by paleo - climate results which have their own uncertainties.

Thus the overall climate sensitivities produced by the model must be regarded with caution.

Not exact matches

Professor Richard Pancost from the University of Bristol Cabot Institute, added: «When we account for the influence of the ice sheets, we confirm that the Earth's climate changed with a similar sensitivity to overall forcing during both warmer and colder climates.»

Although the strength of this feedback varies somewhat among models, its overall impact on the spread of model climate sensitivities is reduced by lapse rate feedback, which tends to be anti-correlated.

Since sensitivity is such a key parameter in climate change, the whole online climate community will be sharper overall thanks to you and Andreas and your coauthors and the resulting discussions, and this sharpness will filter out to all the people we communicate with.

My impression is that by tracking overall albedo, DSCOVR is key to determining the transient climate sensitivity.

This question is apparently rather more complicated than I thought — I'm awaiting a post here from someone more expert to explain it to me... — William] Further Response: Greater climate sensitivity in the N. Hemisphere, and greater sensitivity overall, is definitely one possible explanation for the data (if, as is argued, the data reflect reality more than previous work does).

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.

The evidence overall remains the same, that the most likely number for climate sensitivity is at least in the middle of the range.

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?

Moreover, and significantly, the fact that they are already doing so is strong evidence that the overall sensitivity of the climate system is quite high, and that stabilization concentrations that were even recently considered to be manageably safe — 450 ppmCO2eq for example — are in fact quite dangerous.

, it is quite reasonable to conjecture that «the» sensitivity of climate to a future doubling of CO2 given the climate as it is now is extremely close to 0, though I personally would probably expect at least an increase in the overall rate of the hydrological cycle.

But the overall sensitivities derived from climate model simulations that double CO2 is a robust method for determining overall sensivity, with the caveat that the models are imperfect.

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

The overall results of these calcs gives an average climate sensitivity of about 2 degrees.

So overall I think they succeed in building a strong case for IPCC to cease using uniform priors in reporting climate sensitivities, and have shown that if IPCC wishes to use priors to in reporting these, the best estimates reduce.

[*] You had said: «is based purely on observational evidence, with no dependence on any climate model simulations... to obtain a direct measure of the overall climate response or feedback parameter... Measuring radiative flux imbalances provides a direct measure of Y, and hence of S, unlike other ways of diagnosing climate sensitivity.»

Once the overall size of the forcings are selected (which of course includes the forcing assumed for a doubling of CO2) and the climate sensitivity is thus set, we are left with only two parameters to distinguish the models... which is the same number of parameters that Lucia uses in her lovely model «Lumpy».

With upcoming release of IPCC Fifth Assessment Reports beginning late in September, there will be a sharp focus on specific issues like projected sea - level rise but also on broader issues like climate sensitivity and the decade - and - a-half-long slow - down in the rate of overall warming.

Fortunately, many of the weaknesses of these two models are opposing (e.g. one has weak El Nino, the other strong) that will allow us improved overall characterization of climate sensitivity.

Recently there have been some studies and comments by a few climate scientists that based on the slowed global surface warming over the past decade, estimates of the Earth's overall equilibrium climate sensitivity (the total amount of global surface warming in response to the increased greenhouse effect from a doubling of atmospheric CO2, including amplifying and dampening feedbacks) may be a bit too high.

Overall, models that better represent this cloud - circulation interaction have a climate sensitivity near 3 °C compared — models that do not have climate sensitivities between 4 ° and 5 °C.

While climate sensitivity may be «higher», whatever that means, the overall effect of CO2 in the climate may well be lower than expected, in comparison with other drivers, iow, the projected warming will be lower.

Energy from warm GHG in the higher layers of the troposphere can escape more easily into space; if the upper troposphere warms more quickly than the surface as greenouse gases increase, this reduces the overall warming for a given increase in GHG, a negative feedback on climate sensitivity.

So, it's really aerosols that you have to rely on to come up with a low climate sensitivity based on temperature rise to date and present overall forcing (2.4 W / m2 less thermal inertia of 0.75 W / m2 giving 1.65 W / m2 with only 0.7 C warming, while 4 - 5 W / m2 is supposed to give 3C).

It is important to note that climate sensitivity is figured on the basis of an overall doubling, compared to pre-industrial levels, of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.