Sentences with phrase «scientific estimate of climate sensitivity»

Caps will error because (1) they won't cover some major emitters for decades, (2) they won't cover land - use changes, (3) the best scientific estimate of climate sensitivity is uncertain by hundreds of billions of tonnes, (4) the earth's CO2 uptake by 2 ° target date is highly uncertain.

To make the IPCC projections of the evolution of the earth's average temperature better reflect the latest scientific estimates of the climate sensitivity, it is necessary to adjust them downward by about 30 % at the low end, about 50 % at the high end, and about 40 % in the middle.

Not exact matches

We show how the maintained consensus about the quantitative estimate of a central scientific concept in the anthropogenic climate - change field — namely, climate sensitivity — operates as an «anchoring device» in «science for policy».

We show how the maintained consensus about the quantitative estimate of a central scientific concept in the anthropogenic climate - change field — namely, climate sensitivity — operates as an «anchoring device» in «science for policy».

Other ways that the standard or «consensus» calculations bias the climate sensitivity upward also exist and are also not negligible (or at least there is no scientific case that they are negligible), but for now it is sufficient to think about, and try to estimate, the magnitude of the increase in H2O and latent heat flow from surface to upper troposphere.

One of these years the scientiifc community is going to wake up to the fact that there is no sound scientific basis on which anyone can claim that CAGW exists, simply because there is no basis whatsoever on which to base any estimate of climate sensitivity.

I do enjoy reading the sometimes lively debate surrounding these issues, and I certainly prefer a bit of skepticism to things like a link to a discussion on Scientific American that I followed recently where they were discussing how the recent temperature record has lead to a lowering of estimates of climate sensitivity.

What we have seen is not in contradiction with the scientific understanding that's represented in the IPCC reports, but it does certainly give some support for the lower estimates for the strength of the trend or equivalently for the transient climate sensitivity.

Although there has been a slower rate of atmospheric warming during the past 18 years, this does not undermine the fundamental physics of global warming, the scientific basis of climate models or the estimates of climate sensitivity.

The only thing I find noteworthy is that it further reinforces the point that there is no scientific consensus on a best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity, which is entirely in agreement with the IPCC's statement in AR5 WG1 SPM: «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.»

Energy budget estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) and transient climate response (TCR) are derived based on the best estimates and uncertainty ranges for forcing provided in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Scientific Report (AR5).

I would expect that, if Lewis really thinks that his estimate of 1.6 C climate sensitivity is relevant, that he would at least write a decent scientific paper on that and get it reviewed and published.

It argues for a CO2 - doubling climate sensitivity of about 1 degree C, markedly lower than just about any other published estimate, well below the low end of the range cited by recent scientific assessments (e.g. the IPCC AR4 report) and inconsistent with any number of other estimates.

The early scientific reviews suggest a couple of reasons: firstly, that modelling the climate as an AR (1) process with a single timescale is an over-simplification; secondly, that a similar analysis in a GCM with a known sensitivity would likely give incorrect results, and finally, that his estimate of the error bars on his calculation are very optimistic.

Estimating «climate sensitivity» — the magnitude of the change in TS after doubling CO2 concentration from the pre-industrial 278 parts per million to ~ 550 ppm — is the central question in the scientific debate about the climate.

Conclusions Even though estimates of climate sensitivity to doubling of CO2 are most likely way over-estimated by the official climate Team, it is a scientific truth that GHGs, mainly H2O but also CO2 and others, play an important role in warming the Earth via the Atmospheric «greenhouse effect».