Sentences with phrase «prior climate sensitivity studies»

Not exact matches

Nic (or anyone else)... would you be able to list all the studies that have used flat priors to estimate climate sensitivity, so that people know to avoid them?

So here are my 7 reasons for why climate scientists should * never * use uniform priors for climate sensitivity, and why the IPCC report shouldn't cite studies that use them.

NL: The Libardoni and Forest 2011 used an «expert», rather than a uniform, prior for climate sensitivity, so its results are not comparable to those of the 2006 and 2008 studies using a uniform prior.

The main results marginal climate sensitivity PDFs for the two studies, using uniform priors, differ substantially in shape.

I have concentrated on the Bayesian inference involved in such studies, since they seem to me in many cases to use inappropriate prior distributions that heavily fatten the upper tail of the estimated PDF for S. I may write a future post concerning that issue, but in this post I want to deal with more basic statistical issues arising in what is, probably, the most important of the Bayesian studies whose PDFs for climate sensitivity were featured in AR4.

The key lies in an innocuous sounding note in AR4: WG1concerning this study, below Figure 9.20: the IPCC have «transformed to a uniform prior distribution in ECS» (climate sensitivity), in the range 0 — 18.5 °C.

Other studies (Forest et al. 2002; Knutti et al. 2003) have assumed a prior that is uniformly distributed in equilibrium climate sensitivity, which is proportional to 1 / Y.

«The assessment is supported additionally by a complementary analysis in which the parameters of an Earth System Model of Intermediate Complexity (EMIC) were constrained using observations of near - surface temperature and ocean heat content, as well as prior information on the magnitudes of forcings, and which concluded that GHGs have caused 0.6 °C to 1.1 °C (5 to 95 % uncertainty) warming since the mid-20th century (Huber and Knutti, 2011); an analysis by Wigley and Santer (2013), who used an energy balance model and RF and climate sensitivity estimates from AR4, and they concluded that there was about a 93 % chance that GHGs caused a warming greater than observed over the 1950 — 2005 period; and earlier detection and attribution studies assessed in the AR4 (Hegerl et al., 2007b).»

So here are my 7 reasons for why climate scientists should * never * use uniform priors for climate sensitivity, and why the IPCC report shouldn't cite studies that use them.

Nic (or anyone else)... would you be able to list all the studies that have used flat priors to estimate climate sensitivity, so that people know to avoid them?