Sentences with phrase «reporting climate sensitivity studies»

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?

Not exact matches

National Geographic News reports that this week's issue of Nature will publish a study from a team led by Gabriele Hegerl of Duke University which finds climate sensitivity of 1.5 º to 6.2 ºC, with a higher end somewhat higher than the standard range of 1.5 — 4.5 ºC.

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.

National Geographic News reports that this week's issue of Nature will publish a study from a team led by Gabriele Hegerl of Duke University which finds climate sensitivity of 1.5 º to 6.2 ºC, with a higher end somewhat higher than the standard range of 1.5 — 4.5 ºC.

He suggested that one example of possible tuning is that «reported values of climate sensitivity are anchored near the 3 ± 1.5 °C range initially suggested by the ad hoc study group on carbon dioxide and climate (1979) and that these were not changed because of a lack of compelling reason to do so».

WHT The Charney report also considered paleoclimate studies which demonstrated at least a 3C climate sensitivity NOT TRUE The phrase associated was «might be» It» might be» much smaller.

The Charney report also considered paleoclimate studies which demonstrated at least a 3C climate sensitivity — higher likely due to the long time scales involved.

Design / methodology / approach: The analyses are based on the IPCC's own reports, the observed temperatures versus the IPCC model - calculated temperatures and the warming effects of greenhouse gases based on the critical studies of climate sensitivity (CS).

In the report, they find reasons to dismiss the many studies and varying approaches that arrive at higher climate sensitivity estimates, and fail to discuss the shortcomings of the lower sensitivity studies that they prefer.

However, the GWPF report only references the «main results» of Aldrin et al. (2012), whose study actually estimated equilibrium climate sensitivity of about 2.5 or 3.3 °C when accounting for cloud and indirect aerosol effects.

In the Working Group 1: The Physical Science Basis Report of AR4 («AR4: WG1»), various studies deriving estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity from observational data are cited, and a comparison of the results of many of these studies is shown in Figure 9.20, reproduced below.

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.»

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.

With an eye toward the next IPCC report, they wanted to stop the building momentum of observational studies that suggest lower climate sensitivities.