Sentences with phrase «sensitivity estimates increasing»

If they were, wouldn't there be trends in, for example, sensitivity estimates increasing over time rather than staying fairly stable?

Not exact matches

This new research takes away the lower end of climate sensitivity estimates, meaning that global average temperatures will increase by 3 °C to 5 °C with a doubling of carbon dioxide.»

By studying the relationship between CO2 levels and climate change during a warmer period in Earth's history, the scientists have been able to estimate how the climate will respond to increasing levels of carbon dioxide, a parameter known as «climate sensitivity».

«Our estimates of climate sensitivity lie well within the range of 1.5 to 4.5 ºC increase per CO2 doubling summarised in the latest IPCC report.

«My view on this is that the research needs to broaden out to have more of a focus on variability more generally so that a) we can predict the next few years better b) we can refine our estimates of the sensitivity of the climate system to increases in greenhouse gas concentrations.»

It was estimated that a sedentary individual who has a very low amount of daily steps but who had been able to modify behaviour over 5 years in order to meet the widely used guideline of 10,000 daily steps would improve insulin sensitivity by 3 times in comparison to a similar individual who increased their steps in order to meet the more recently recommended 3,000 steps for 5 days each week.

Interest rate sensitivity can be estimated by projecting a hypothetical instantaneous increase or decrease in interest rates.

Consequently this estimate was used with 0.1 increases and decreases as a starting point in assessing the sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV for both CM (n = 155) and SM (n = 135).

Environmetrics http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/env.2140/abstract;jsessionid=38E88DBEDFC0F5214703FE5877A722A3.d03t03?systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library+will+be+disrupted+17+March+from+10-14+GMT+%2806-10+EDT%29+for+essential+maintenance&userIsAuthenticated=false&deniedAccessCustomisedMessage= [from the Knappenberger piece: «The [climate sensitivity] mean is 2.0 °C... which is lower than the IPCC estimate from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC, 2007), but this estimate increases if an extra forcing component is added, see the following text.

«The [climate sensitivity] mean is 2.0 °C... which is lower than the IPCC estimate from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC, 2007), but this estimate increases if an extra forcing component is added, see the following text.

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.

Secondly it seems really important to me for the wider discussion (beyond just the topic of this thread) that some estimate of the «uncertain» potentiating effect of predicted temperature increases be provided and integrated with the climate sensitivity predictions so that we can have a statement that actually attempts to predict possible real world temperature increases.

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?

I think that the vast majority of lay readers who read the headlines and the text of stories on climate sensitivity do not know this and they simply presume that the scientists concerned are talking about their absolute best estimates of the possible temperature increases which may be faced.

Since the sensitivity estimates using the Otto et al method in the model world are biased low, using the estimated efficacies in the real world means that the sensitivities from the adjusted methodologies are going to be increased, and indeed that's exactly what happens.

However, it is important to keep in mind that we might easily more than double it if we really don't make much effort to cut back (I think the current estimated reserves of fossil fuels would increase CO2 by a factor of like 5 or 10, which would mean a warming of roughly 2 - 3 times the climate sensitivity for doubling CO2 [because of the logarithmic dependence of the resulting warming to CO2 levels]-RRB-... and CO2 levels may be able to fall short of doubling if we really make a very strong effort to reduce emissions.

While it is true that, holding everything else equal, an increase in how much cooling was associated with aerosols would lead to an increase in the estimate of climate sensitivity, the error bars are too large for this to be much of a constraint.

Thanks Pete and Gavin for your response in # 116 that the estimates for future temperature change being discussed in the climate sensitivity studies (discussed in this thread) do not generally take into account the effect of increased temperature on initiating further natural carbon release.

Trenberth et al. suggest that even the choice of a different data set of ocean heat content would have increased the climate sensitivity estimate of Otto et al. by 0.5 degrees.

[T] here have now been several recent papers showing much the same — numerous factors including: the increase in positive forcing (CO2 and the recent work on black carbon), decrease in estimated negative forcing (aerosols), combined with the stubborn refusal of the planet to warm as had been predicted over the last decade, all makes a high climate sensitivity increasingly untenable.

In fact, Cane et al (1997) argue that the tendency toward increased SST gradient is precisely what is seen if one uses a robust trend analysis to decrease sensitivity of the trend analysis to outliers such as the very large 1982/1983 El Nino event (this event, and the equally large 1997/1998 El Nino event, greatly influence the estimate of a weakening trend of the Walker circulation in Vecchi et al).

IPCC makes all sorts of calculations on the deleterious effects of NOT halting CO2 emissions, based on the same climate sensitivity estimate and a bunch of model «scenarios» on CO2 increase.

Climate sensitivity is the estimate of how much the earth's climate will warm in response to the increased greenhouse effect if we double the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Its median climate sensitivity estimate of 1.6 C wsn't materially changed by the replot, but the upper tail was fattened, with the upper 97.5 % confidence limit being increased from 4.1 C to 8.6 C.

(ppm) Year of Peak Emissions Percent Change in global emissions Global average temperature increase above pre-industrial at equilibrium, using «best estimate» climate sensitivity CO 2 concentration at stabilization (2010 = 388 ppm) CO 2 - eq.

The temperature increase at the end of the century in the low sensitivity case is about half that of the IPCC - range estimate.

Would the lower rate of cooling give us something close to an empirical estimate of climate sensitivity to increased CO2?

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.

The short answer is: if the «planet GISSII» has a big time constant, and you increase the «forcing» linearly (or just in any monotonically increasing function of time), you'll tend to under - estimate sensitivity by fitting lines near «time = 0», or using much model data near time = 0.

As the name suggests, climate sensitivity is an estimate of how sensitive the climate is to an increase in a radiative forcing.

2) In addition to estimates of climate sensitivity, there are other lines of evidence showing that anthropogenic activity (predominately increased CO2) caused most of the recent global warming; this provides further credence for the > = 95 % certainty on the attribution point.

The three successive IPCC reports (1991 [2], 1996, and 2001 [3]-RRB- concentrated therefore, in addition to estimates of equilibrium sensitivity, on estimates of climate change over the 21st century, based on several scenarios of CO2 increase over this time interval, and using up to 18 general circulation models (GCMs) in the fourth IPCC Assessment Report (AR4)[4].

Chance that increased GHGs are expected to lead to warming on the scale of the observed warming: this requires estimates of climate sensitivity, ocean heat uptake, etc., but I would think that basic theory suggests that increased GHGs could be responsible for much more than the observed warming.

(1) climate sensitivity estimates ignore higher estimates; (2) damage estimates at low - temp increases (2.5 C) are off; (3) damage estimates at high - temp increases (10C to 20C) are just silly.

A general agreement that IF this trend continues for another «X» years despite continued increase of GHG concentrations, there will be enough evidence in the red column to seriously question the ability of the GCMs cited by IPCC: a) to correctly assess human attribution of past climate change b) to estimate climate sensitivity c) to make meaningful projections of future climate changes due to AGW

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.

In a sensitivity analysis, we found that calculating absolute runoff based on the low (r = 0.66) and high values (r = 0.74) of this index changed the estimated increase from treatments by only 1 — 2 percentage points.

But in summary I think there is strong evidence that enables us to estimate the forcing from increased CO2, so I am happy that the forcing amount (which can be calculated with good obs) coupled with the sensitivity (uncertain) gives us the warming.

I hope it keeps increasing as if it does and if temperatures remain stagnent, it could influence estimates of climate sensitivity to CO2 depending on the time frame involved»

I hope it keeps increasing as if it does it may influence estimates of climate sensitivity to CO2»

As we discussed regarding the Norwegian paper, studies estimating climate sensitivity based on recent data may be biased low due to a failure to account for increased heat transfer to the 700 — 2000 meter ocean layer (Figure 3).

In particular, two commonly used methods for converting cumulus condensate into precipitation can lead to drastically different climate sensitivity, as estimated here with an atmosphere — land model by increasing sea surface temperatures uniformly and examining the response in the top - of - atmosphere energy balance.

The reason these pdfs show no negative climate sensitivities is that the estimates consider only periods when both forcings and temperatures increased (or decreased, such as in the case of the Pinatubo eruption), which makes it impossible to estimate a negative climate sensitivity.

Climate sensitivity is calculated by factoring temperature increases with forcings, but how accurately can we estimate the forcings?

Leigh Kelley asks how Professor Lindzen derives a climate sensitivity one - third of the IPCC's central estimate from the observation in Wentz et al. (2007) that the observed increase in evaporation from the Earth's surface per Kelvin of warming is almost 6 %, while the models incorrectly predict 1 - 3 %.

It reproduced a preliminary graph from a non-physical sciences group showing lower than scientific consensus estimates for temperature increase through 2100 and conflated it with an entirely Economist - manufactured news item erroneously stating scientists are finding climate sensitivity is lower than previously expected (Hint: it's not).

Girma, the equilibrium climate sensitivity (estimated at about 3C per CO2 doubling; or about 0.8 C per W / m ^ 2) is not related to the rate of increase, but to how far the increase goes until the Earth is back in energy balance.

A record warm 2014 without an El Niño kicker and record warm oceans should be factored into discussions and estimates of climate sensitivity to the rapidly increasing GHG's.

Another problem with paleo - climate sensitivity estimates is that the forcings are very different from increasing CO2.

Merging realistic estimates of low - cloud amount, high - cloud amount, and extratropical optical depth feedbacks would likely increase our confidence in constraints on climate sensitivity from climate models.