Sentences with phrase «says about the climate sensitivity»

CO2 growth rates (CEI, p. 11): arguments about what growth rates for CO2 emissions that some models use are besides the point of what the science says about the climate sensitivity of the earth system (emissions growth rates are if anything an economic question).

The balance of evidence that the warming may continue to rise is from a theoretical perspective only, and yes I agree entirely that the longer the pause continues the more it says about climate sensitivity.

My main interest is in understanding what, if anything, we can say about climate sensitivity that does not rely on General Circulation Models.

Not exact matches

Isaac Held, a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration climate scientist, said he agreed with the researchers about the «the importance of getting the ice - liquid ratio in mixed - phase clouds right,» but he doesn't agree that global climate models generally underestimate climate sensitivity.

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.

The addition says many climate models typically look at short term, rapid factors when calculating the Earth's climate sensitivity, which is defined as the average global temperature increase brought about by a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere.

In a phone chat, he said that arguments about specific levels of climate sensitivity, or specific goals for carbon dioxide concentrations, have little meaning as long as the world is not slowing down from its accelerating path on emissions.

My first question was how come I was seeing «around 3 degrees» for climate sensitivity when the physics says to expect about one degree of warming from doubling CO2.

However, studies as far back as the 1960s have shown that an estimated Charney climate sensitivity of about 3 C seems about right, so I guess you could say that there has been no progress.

Saying something like this, though, kind of puts the cart before the horse, since I haven't said anything about «climate sensitivity,» or about how the scientists think about probability — and of course it's even uglier.

Given CO2 warming over the last 130 PPM was at best 0.37 to 0.75 degrees and the implied climate sensitivity from that is therefore 0.77 to 1.35 degrees per doubling, therefore the magic 2 degree figure (noting that the IPCC says up to 2 degrees of warming will be positive for the human race) is likely 500 — 1000 years away from happening, why are we even worried about it?

You may remember that in one of the UK House of commons sessions on AR5 WG1, he said that climate sensitivity was a bit like Katie Price — a lot of people were talking about it but it wasn't clear why.

Steve: Willis, I've posted late in 2007 about Kiehl's report that GCMs with high climate sensitivity adopted aerosol histories with relative low variability and conversely; thus there is more coherence in the GCM ensembles than in the underlying data — suggesting a certain shall - we - say opportunism in the aerosol history selection.

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).

It's well - said, and avoids the mistake many non-technical publications make of implying the only uncertainty is due to uncertainty about climate sensitivity.

He paid no attention to my points, made strawman arguments based on putting words in my mouth that I had not said, made blatantly false claims about my climate analyses, failed to distinguish the different notions of climate sensitivity, and misrepresented Arrhenius, Let me illustrate with the following dozen -LRB-!)

Perhaps we could say that probabilistic statements about climate sensitivity ignore uncertainty regarding the true relationship between predictor and predictand.

James Annan, of Frontier Research For Global Change, a prominent «warmist», recently said high estimates for climate sensitivity now look «increasingly untenable», with the true figure likely to be about half of the IPCC prediction in its last report in 2007.

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.

Also, perhaps a more open - ended question would be what does he think the average sceptic MEANS when they say «I am sceptical about AGW, or CAGW, or the consensus position on climate sensitivity, or IPCC statements, or the possibility of mitigation...»

Any student of climate can say with confidence that the IPCC Fourth Assessment was wrong about either attribution or climate sensitivity or both.

Thinking about the problem in terms of temperature increase for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 (which we will probably exceed with current policies and energy trends), even studies that reinforce the skeptical narrative of low mean climate sensitivity leaves some chance of warming greatly exceeding international goals and historical boundaries (say a 5 percent chance of warming exceeding 4 °C).

I think James» point about the last decade is not that global warming has stopped (implying low or zero climate sensitivity) but that it has not accelerated to the extent that it would have if climate sensitivity were very high (above, say, 4).

And what this Section of IPCC say about ECS: «Most studies suggest a 5th percentile for climate sensitivity of 1 °C or above»

Note in a previous discussion Steven, a Luke warmer, passionate about saving the planet, said to me that the longer the pause goes the lower the climate sensitivity would be and did not rule it out going under 1.6.

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

Weitzman assumes a fat tail distribution, I am saying we don't know what the distribution looks like, and that we can probably bound it on the upper end (Wietzman's 20C climate sensitivity is beyond anything anyone is talking about).

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.

jae says: May 9, 2011 at 7:37 pm... «What I have argued here is that the most likely range of the climate sensitivity is what the IPCC says the most likely range is... which corresponds to feedbacks amplifying the radiative effect due to CO2 alone by a factor of about 3 + / - 1 ″

What I have argued here is that the most likely range of the climate sensitivity is what the IPCC says the most likely range is... which corresponds to feedbacks amplifying the radiative effect due to CO2 alone by a factor of about 3 + / - 1.

That's odd, I seem to remember that about a year ago you'd firmed up on 2.8, saying that climate sensitivity was a «mature field».

Curry might say something about the» 76 - ’78 warm phase, but either climate sensitivity is no more her expertise than many amateur bloggers or she is intentionally muddying the waters with a long screed about Balmaseda reanalysis and attacking the strawman of «hiatus = missing heat».

ie consensus about 3.0 C (about rangeing from say 2.5 - 3.5, depending who you ask, or even narrower say 2.75 - 3.25 C say) Your Revkin email stated, «all makes a high climate sensitivity increasingly untenable.

Just a quick - fire post on climate sensitivity, because that is, after all is said and done, what all this business is about.

«James Annan, of Frontier Research For Global Change, a prominent «warmist», recently said high estimates for climate sensitivity now look «increasingly untenable»,» but the second half questionable:»... with the true figure likely to be about half of the IPCC prediction in its last report in 2007.»

# 235 JB said The charade is nearly over: https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0667.1 I've been saying for 20 years now that the IPCC overestimates climate sensitivity by about a factor of 2.

I've been saying for 20 years now that the IPCC overestimates climate sensitivity by about a factor of 2.

The IPCC says that the central value for the climate sensitivity constant «S» is about 0.8 °C per W / m2 (or 3 °C per doubling of CO2).