Sentences with phrase «paleoclimate sensitivity estimates»

Could some aspect of our situation, e.g. the extreme rapidity of the forcing change, be sufficiently novel to make Earth's climate respond differently than it has in the past, and could this cause divergence from models based on paleoclimate sensitivity estimates?

Not exact matches

A best estimate of climate sensitivity close to 3 °C for doubled CO2 has been inferred from paleoclimate data [51]--[52].

Climate model studies and empirical analyses of paleoclimate data can provide estimates of the amplification of climate sensitivity caused by slow feedbacks, excluding the singular mechanisms that caused the hyperthermal events.

David's comments reminded me of something that Suki Manabe and I wrote more than 25 years ago in a paper that used CLIMAP data in a comparative evaluation of two versions of the 1980s - vintage GFDL model: «Until this disparity in the estimates of LGM paleoclimate is resolved, it is difficult to use data from the LGM to evaluate differences in low latitude sensitivity between climate models.»

The estimate for the CO2 sensitivity comes (mostly) from paleoclimate studies, observed climate responses to volcanoes, and climate models.

This means that approaches that use the first order approximation to estimate climate sensitivity from the instrumental period (such as Lewis) will underestimate climate sensitivity and approaches that use the first order to estimate climate sensitivity using paleoclimate data (Hansen and others) will overestimate climate sensitivity.

A best estimate of climate sensitivity close to 3 °C for doubled CO2 has been inferred from paleoclimate data [51]--[52].

Climate model studies and empirical analyses of paleoclimate data can provide estimates of the amplification of climate sensitivity caused by slow feedbacks, excluding the singular mechanisms that caused the hyperthermal events.

Additionally, the GWPF report uses 68 percent confidence ranges throughout, so the 2.2 and 4.8 °C PALEOSENS paleoclimate estimate is inconsistent with the GWPF low sensitivity conclusions.

Various paleoclimate - based equilibrium climate sensitivity estimates from a range of geologic time periods.

In summary, paleoclimate studies provide one line of evidence that supports an equilibrium climate sensitivity between about 2 and 4.5 °C, and the GWPF justification for dismissing these estimates is weak.

Instead, the report argues that this approach provides the only reliable method for estimating climate sensitivity, and that all other methods that produce higher estimates (e.g. paleoclimate and GCMs) are wrong.

These uncertainties may partly explain the typically weak correlations found between paleoclimate indices and climate projections, and the difficulty in narrowing the spread in models» climate sensitivity estimates from paleoclimate - based emergent constraints (Schmidt et.

However, as Hansen notes, empirical estimates of climate sensitivity based on paleoclimate data are consistent with the sensitivity in climate models of approximately 3 °C for doubled atmospheric CO2.

In this manner, Hansen and Sato use climate models to help them estimate past radiative forcings and surface temperature changes using paleoclimate data without influencing their climate sensitivity estimates.

To the authors, sensitivity estimates based on paleoclimate are worthy of discussion and estimates based on GCMs are worthy of discussion, but estimates based on actual observations are giving a throw away line.

You can not estimate CO2 sensitivity in the ice ages or in the paleoclimate without having good Albedo estimates.

Efforts to estimate climate sensitivity from paleoclimate records... face the additional challenge of a proxy record that contains major uncertainty.

Pekka, paleoclimate being independent of models is valuable as another line of evidence, and in recent years the last 60 million years has become better constrained in temperature and CO2 to allow for sensitivity ranges to be independently estimated from it, as Hansen has done.