Sentences with phrase «said equilibrium climate»

Annan said equilibrium climate sensitivity is unlikely to be higher than 4.5 °C - there are few if any mainstream climate scientists who would disagree with this.

Annan said equilibrium climate sensitivity is unlikely to be higher than 4.5 °C — there are few if any mainstream climate scientists who would disagree with this.

Not exact matches

Specifically, the draft report says that «equilibrium climate sensitivity» (ECS)-- eventual warming induced by a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which takes hundreds of years to occur — is «extremely likely» to be above 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit), «likely» to be above 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.4 degrees Fahrenheit) and «very likely» to be below 6 degrees Celsius (10.8 Fahrenheit).

The Hansen et al study (2004) on target atmospheric CO2 and climate sensitivity is quite clear on this topic: equilibrium responses would double the GCM - based estimates, with very little to be said about transient effects.

You can estimate how close to equilibrium the climate must be over such a time period assuming for instance that all the energy imbalance goes to melting ice: an imbalance of say 0.1 W / m2 would over 2000 years melts / grows approx 18m of ice.

DDS 1: «The claim of reduced uncertainty for equilibrium climate sensitivity is premature» This is what many climate skeptics have been saying for years and they have been called deniers for their efforts.

I estimate dT increased from 1980 to 2010 by about 0.4 K. Given equilibrium climate sensitivity of 0.75 K / Wm2, the amount of forcing neutralised by said dT is; 0.4 * 0.75 = 0.3 W / m2.

When I rephrased my question and gave some background to my reason for asking it, you went way outside your area of expertise and turned to stating your opinions (based on you ideological beliefs) about how much your tool says the planet will warm by 2100 (4.4 C you said based on 3.2 C equilibrium climate sensitivity).

The current impasse in climate science has arisen because AGW proponents say that simply altering the radiative characteristics of constituent molecules within the atmosphere can result in a change in system equilibrium temperature without any need for an increase in mass, gravity or insolation.

And that says nothing about the fact that the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity is supposed to reflect the rise in temperature following an increase in atmospheric CO2, but what is estimated is the rise in temperature PRECEEDING an increase in atmospheric CO2.

It might be said that the climate system is always striving to approach equilibrium.

The Lewis and Curry paper said the best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity — the change in global mean surface temperature at equilibrium that is caused by a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration — was 1.64 degrees.

The fact that the estimates based on the instrumental period tend to peak low has probably more to do with the fact that the climate has not been in equilibrium during that entire instrumental period and so therefore converting the sensitivity computed into an equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), which is what is being discussed, requires some guesswork (and, dare I say it — modelling).

Say that CO2 doubles by about 2150 — how long before the climate has changed 95 % of the way, at the surface and lower troposphere, from where it is now to its equilibrium?

So are you also saying that co2 has a limited effect on changing The equilibrium from one climate state to another or do you argue for something stronger, which would mean that you aren't a lukewarmer a all but a rather warmer version?

support for the exponential growth economy which underpins climate change denialism is so hilarious — its not credible outside of the stoned mind of a proponent of the General Equilibrium Theory and we will hit a brick wall one way or another in the next 10 to 20 years irrespective of what conventional economics says.

You differentiate between the climate conditions of the MWP and today, by saying that of the MWP was different because it was at an «equilibrium» state (while that of today is — in your opinion — not so).

The 20th and 21st centuries are jointly a transition between equilibrium states, which is what we should be studying if we expect to be able to say anything useful about the likely climate profile of the coming century.

Where did I ever say I was using «climate sensitivity» to refer to the equilibrium concept?

However, Curry has no publications or expertise in this area, and once said that the global equilibrium climate sensitivity could fall anywhere between 0 and 10 °C for doubled CO2.

Junkink: What you've said is not quite right for while a particular value of the equilibrium climate sensitivity possesses a probability density, under the IPCC's model, it does not possess a probability.

In view of what Leif Svalgaard says about the smallness of solar variations I'm coming round to the opinion that virtually all climate change that we observe is simply internal variability induced by the oceans and countered in the air all occurring around a relatively stable equilibrium set by sun and oceans.

Hector — I didn't quite say «easily solved», but the Transient Climate Response (TCR) can serve as a useful approximation to equilibrium climate sensitivity, and moreover, may be of greater practical use, since it predicts climate responses over the course of decades rather than those that might eventuate one thousand yearsClimate Response (TCR) can serve as a useful approximation to equilibrium climate sensitivity, and moreover, may be of greater practical use, since it predicts climate responses over the course of decades rather than those that might eventuate one thousand yearsclimate sensitivity, and moreover, may be of greater practical use, since it predicts climate responses over the course of decades rather than those that might eventuate one thousand yearsclimate responses over the course of decades rather than those that might eventuate one thousand years later.

Assuming a climate equilibrium lobe (one), the GCMs would settle there to bring us to say for instance 2016, and then the real part of the run would precede forward in time.

«From the corresponding paper: «our study says nothing about the equilibrium climate sensitivity; it only suggests that the equilibrium greenhouse sensitivity is zero.»

The BBC Trust's latest report issued earlier this month said the corporation would give less time to climate change skeptics to create more of equilibrium.

As you've said, «Once you go way back in time, it's questionable whether the concept of sensitivity really applies (it needs an equilibrium climate to exist, for starters).»

Judith says «My take is that external forcing explains general variations on very long time scales, and equilibrium differences in planetary climates of relevance to comparative planetology.»

Some models have the climate balanced, and some students of climate say that one process or another tends to dynamic equilibrium, but no theory supports these conjectures.

Knutti and Hegerl in the November, 2008 Natural Geoscience paper, The equilibrium sensitivity of the Earth's temperature to radiation changes, says various observations favor a climate sensitivity value of about 3 degrees C, with a likely range of about 2 — 4.5 degrees C per the following graphic whereas the current IPCC uncertainty is range is between 1.5 - 4.5 degrees C.

I say this seems at odds with your statement «The observed climate is just the equilibrium response to such variations with the positions of the air circulation systems and the speed of the hydrological cycle always adjusting to bring energy differentials above and below the troposphere back towards equilibrium (Wilde's Law?).»

A footnote in the new AR5 SPM says «16 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.»

Climate Science seem to deny any evidence of major far from equilibrium effects citing that all that is being observed is as predicted, which other sources say is not true.

Allegation 3: It is said that we use graphs showing that global temperatures have been falling since 2001 to support what is called our «claim that the climate models are wildly inaccurate», and that we have plotted predictions of equilibrium temperature change rather than of the lesser transient temperature change that the IPCC actually predicts.

That would raise temperature by dT where k * -LRB-(290 + dT) ^ 4 - 290 ^ 4) = 0.2 which gives dT ~ = +0.07 deg C. That's only reached at equilibrium, and as Nick says, ««Equilibrium Climate Sequilibrium, and as Nick says, ««Equilibrium Climate SEquilibrium Climate Sensitivity.

Next, given that the Constructal Law says that a flow system far from equilibrium (like the climate) has preferred states, how is the idea that the earth has a thermostat «not a theory»?