Sentences with phrase «recent climate sensitivity studies»

A summary of recent climate sensitivity studies can be found here.

Not exact matches

«This is one of several recent studies that provide sobering evidence that earth's climate sensitivity may lie in the upper end of the current uncertainty range,» Mann said in an email.

That study addressed a puzzle, namely that recent studies using the observed changes in Earth's surface temperature suggested climate sensitivity is likely towards the lower end of the estimated range.

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.

One recent study examining the Palaeocene — Eocene Thermal Maximum (about 55 million years ago), during which the planet warmed 5 - 9 °C, found that «At accepted values for the climate sensitivity to a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration, this rise in CO2 can explain only between 1 and 3.5 °C of the warming inferred from proxy records» (Zeebe 2009).

Do you think that in the same way that the Solanki et al paper on solar sunspot reconstructions had a specific statement that their results did not contradict ideas of strong greenhouse warming in recent decades, this (the fact that climate sensitivity projections are not best estimates of possible future actual temperature increases) should be clearly noted in media releases put out by scientists when reporting climate sensitivity studies?

Interestingly, our results are actually pretty consistent with a lot of the recent literature on sensitivity: All studies comparing simple models with recent climate change (from Andronova and Schlesinger, 2001, onwards) find high sensitivities (more than 8K, say) are consistent (at the few - percent level) with the observed record unless they are ruled out a priori.

That study addressed a puzzle, namely that recent studies using the observed changes in Earth's surface temperature suggested climate sensitivity is likely towards the lower end of the estimated range.

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.

The first paper adds to the literature pointing to humans as the dominant cause of warming since 1950, but also finds that the sensitivity of the climate system to the greenhouse - gas buildup could be lower than some other recent studies found.

In Addendum: Climate Change Impacts in the United States (pp. 26 - 28), Michaels and his colleague Chip Knappenberger discuss those studies in greater detail and also illustrate with two graphs how the IPCC AR4 warming projections should be adjusted in light of more recent climate sensitivity reClimate Change Impacts in the United States (pp. 26 - 28), Michaels and his colleague Chip Knappenberger discuss those studies in greater detail and also illustrate with two graphs how the IPCC AR4 warming projections should be adjusted in light of more recent climate sensitivity reclimate sensitivity research.

The manuscript uses a simple energy budget equation (as employed e.g. by Gregory et al 2004, 2008, Otto et al 2013) to test the consistency between three recent «assessments» of radiative forcing and climate sensitivity (not really equilibrium climate sensitivity in the case of observational studies).

His study and other recent research, he said, suggests that «we may need to go back and start recalculating the climate sensitivity estimates for the earth.»

(The recent lowering of climate sensitivity from 3 degrees to something on the order of 1.6 degrees in multiple studies is a welcome development.)

As we discussed regarding the Norwegian paper, studies estimating climate sensitivity based on recent data may be biased low due to a failure to account for increased heat transfer to the 700 — 2000 meter ocean layer (Figure 3).

That is why I consider the conclusion of MEA15, that «Climate sensitivities estimated from recent observations will therefore be biased low...» to be unjustifiable, whether or not the study contains serious errors (as it does).

Our results agree with recent studies that annual mean data - constraints from present day climate prove to not rule out climate sensitivities above the widely assumed sensitivity range of 1.5 — 4.5 °C (Houghton et al. 2001).

I'm afraid you are barking up the wrong tree when you simply tell me all the recent studies showing a much lower 2xCO2 equilibrium climate sensitivity are In your opinion «all wrong» (and actually expect me to believe you).

The observational constraint in Volodin (2008) suggests that climate sensitivity more likely lies in the upper range of model estimates (ECS most likely around 3.5 K), in agreement with more recent studies by Siler et.

2) Other studies are confirming a low climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling around 1 C, as the recent paper by Spencer.

Combined LGM, Eemian and Pliocene studies would address an issue raised at a recent workshop [99]: the need to evaluate how climate sensitivity varies as a function of the initial climate state.

Kevin Dayaratna's testimony favored low probability distributions for climate sensitivity, all based on empirical studies of recent warming.

The TSD purports to rely on IPCC work as a basis for a supposed «sensitivity» of climate to increasing atmospheric C02, but fails to mention that the most recent IPCC report completely undermines any basis for determining climate sensitivity with the following statement: «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.»

A recent study used NASA satellite observations to test the skill of climate models in simulating this cloud - type transition, and found that high sensitivity models simulate it more accurately, while low sensitivity models tend to overemphasize its climate cooling effect.

A recent study by C10 analysed a number of different climate variables in a set of SMEs of HadCM3 (Gordon et al. 2000, atmosphere — ocean coupled version of HadSM3) from the point of view of global - scale model errors and climate change forcings and feedbacks, and compared them with variables derived from the CMIP3 MME. Knutti et al. (2006) examined another SME based on the HadSM3 model, and found a strong relationship between the magnitude of the seasonal cycle and climate sensitivity, which was not reproduced in the CMIP3 ensemble.

In which case please point to a significant cluster of recent studies (preferably, but not necessarily, based upon observations) which support higher estimates of climate sensitivity.

As well as this simple estimate from heat balance implying a best estimate for ECS of approximately 1.6 °C, and the reworking of the Gregory 02 results suggesting a slightly lower figure, two good quality recent observationally - constrained studies using relatively simple hemispheric - resolving models also point to climate sensitivity being about 1.6 °C:

As valuation depends strongly on the transient climate response, uncertainty in sensitivity is based on the range in a recent study of the AR5 models (1.3 — 3.15 °C; (Shindell 2014)-RRB- relative to the mean of those models (1.8 °C, hence − 28 % / +75 %; those models also exhibited a mean ECS of 3.2 °C).

Empirical data from recent studies based on actual physical observations have raised serious doubt concerning these feedback assumptions and the resulting 2xCO2 climate sensitivity.