Sentences with phrase «reduce estimates of sensitivity»

I have a lot of respect for James Annan's statistical acumen and often read his blog, but the comment «the additional decade of temperature data from 2000 onwards -LSB-...] can only work to reduce estimates of sensitivity» puzzled me also.

As I said to Andy Revkin (and he published on his blog), the additional decade of temperature data from 2000 onwards (even the AR4 estimates typically ignored the post-2000 years) can only work to reduce estimates of sensitivity, and that's before we even consider the reduction in estimates of negative aerosol forcing, and additional forcing from black carbon (the latter being very new, is not included in any calculations AIUI).

I applaud the people working on it, but it's very tough, and one reason why recent comments like «the additional decade of temperature data from 2000 onwards... can only work to reduce estimates of sensitivity» from James Annan just don't fly.

Adding in just a single decade of data, from 2000 to 2010, significantly reduces the estimate of sensitivity to 1.9 C.

Not exact matches

These results suggest that sea surface temperature pattern - induced low cloud anomalies could have contributed to the period of reduced warming between 1998 and 2013, and offer a physical explanation of why climate sensitivities estimated from recently observed trends are probably biased low 4.

However, it is important to keep in mind that we might easily more than double it if we really don't make much effort to cut back (I think the current estimated reserves of fossil fuels would increase CO2 by a factor of like 5 or 10, which would mean a warming of roughly 2 - 3 times the climate sensitivity for doubling CO2 [because of the logarithmic dependence of the resulting warming to CO2 levels]-RRB-... and CO2 levels may be able to fall short of doubling if we really make a very strong effort to reduce emissions.

In essence Tung & Zhou are dining at the denialist's last - chance saloon by invoking a 60 - year natural cycle (their cycle of choice being AMO) resulting in a reduced anthropogenic influence on climate, although they make sure to not directly challenge climate sensitivity by asserting that their findings will impact on assessment of net anthropogenic forcing and leave climate sensitivity estimates unchallenged.

The results of the analysis demonstrate that relative to the reference case, projected atmospheric CO2 concentrations are estimated by 2100 to be reduced by 3.29 to 3.68 part per million by volume (ppmv), global mean temperature is estimated to be reduced by 0.0076 to 0.0184 °C, and sea - level rise is projected to be reduced by approximately 0.074 — 0.166 cm, based on a range of climate sensitivities.

Kenneth, I really think it is all about reducing the credibility of any empirical estimate which yields other than high sensitivity.

An updated estimate of the equilibrium climate sensitivity distribution (ECS)-- a measure of CO2's temperature impact — reduces the 2020 estimate of SCC by more than 40 percent; and

Similarly, the IPCC has allowed for lower temperature rises by reducing the lower end of its estimate of so - called climate sensitivity.

As documented at And Then There's Physics, when using data up to 1995, the method yields an estimated climate sensitivity range of 2.0 — 3.6 °C, but incorporating an additional 6 years of data reduces the estimate approximately 33 percent, to 1.2 — 2.2 °C.

For instance, two that were based purely on global energy balance estimates, with climate sensitivity assumed to be 3 K; three did not themselves actually estimate global aerosol forcing; and one turns out to have used a model with a serious code error, correction of which substantially reduces its estimate of aerosol cooling.

The results reduced uncertainty in proxy records and improved earlier estimates and contribute to our understanding of climate change today, especially the findings hint at a higher climate sensitivity to CO2 emissions.

As the evidence grows that global warming has not been as great, nor as fast, as the climate models predicted, the experts (and the IPCC) have been continually forced to reduce their estimates of climate sensitivity to CO2.

What this paper attempts to do is point the way to a simple, physically sound approach to reducing uncertainty and establishing estimates of climate sensitivity that are focused and testable.

«Using a probabilistic setup of a reduced complexity model and an ensemble of an Earth System Model, we showed that unforced climate variability is important in the estimation of the climate sensitivity, in particular when estimating the most likely value, and more so for the equilibrium than for the transient response.

This misfire made it pretty much impossible to get much traction out of the modest adjustments that were actually contained in the report, such as reducing the lower bound estimate of climate sensitivity to 1.5 degrees (it was increased from 1.5 degrees to 2.0 degrees in the Fourth Assessment Report0

Replacing the impact of a strongly positive net feedback with that of a strongly negative net feedback would reduce the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity to somewhere around 1 °C (or around one - third of the IPCC model - based estimate).

If you're a believer in strong natural variability, and you're looking to criticize the IPCC, you might complain that they don't reduce their estimates of climate sensitivity enough, or that they don't adequately discuss the increased evidence of the importance of natural variability in affecting temperatures from decade to decade.