Sentences with phrase «said equilibrium climate sensitivity»

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.

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).

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.

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).

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.

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.

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

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).»

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.

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.»

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.