One could add the word «almost» before «exclusively», if that would make you happy, but let's face it: the 2xCO2 climate
sensitivity estimates of IPCC are essentially all model - based.
With regards to IPCC sensitivity estimates, on the one hand, we have for example Annan who has documented
his sensitivity estimates of 1.7 C to 4.5 C with 95 % certainty similarly as the IPCC.
A combination of circumstances makes model - based
sensitivity estimates of distant times and different climates hard to do, but at least we are getting a good education about it.
I think that some comment on my energy balance based climate
sensitivity estimate of 1.6 - 1.7 °C (details at http://www.webcitation.org/6DNLRIeJH), which underpinned Matt Ridley's WSJ op - ed, would have been relevant and of interest.
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.
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.
This relatively low glacial - interglacial temperature change estimate contributed to the relatively low climate
sensitivity estimate of Schmittner et al. (more on this below).
In doing so, he arrived at an equilibrium climate
sensitivity estimate of 1.99 °C with a 95 % confidence range of it being between 1.75 °C and 2.23 °C.
I think that some comment on my energy balance based climate
sensitivity estimate of 1.6 - 1.7 °C (details at http://www.webcitation.org/6DNLRIeJH), which underpinned Matt Ridley's WSJ op - ed, would have been relevant and of interest.
«How to arrive at IPCC's climate
sensitivity estimate of about 3 deg C and a contrasting estimate of 1.2 deg C»
Not exact matches
This year's budget provides a
sensitivity analysis for yields on 10 - year bonds; should interest rates fall in line with the BMO projections, the Ontario government will see
estimated gains
of $ 400 million next year alone.
The Interest Rate
Sensitivity illustrator
estimates the potential impact
of interest rate changes on both the value
of your individual fixed income positions and your overall portfolio.
Since changes in interest rates impact bond funds differently than bonds and CDs,
estimates of price
sensitivity may be less accurate the larger the shift in interest rates.
The current
estimate according to 133.org is that one in 133 Americans have celiac and another 18 million have some form
of non-Celiac gluten
sensitivity.
There's not yet a definitive test for gluten
sensitivity, making accurate
estimates of its prevalence difficult.
people with non-coeliac gluten
sensitivity, which is
estimated to affect 5 - 10 per cent
of the population.
95 % UI = uncertainty interval around the cost and DALY
estimates, derived from multivariate
sensitivity analysis propagating uncertainty around cost inputs, elasticity
estimates, relative risks
of disease outcomes and the prevalence
of alcohol consumption.
Even though only an
estimated 1 %
of Americans have tested positive to have Celiac disease, there are many people who notice they have gluten
sensitivity.
If you check out the study, you will see that the results
of the
sensitivity analysis did move some
estimates that favored water birth to the null — which means that there was no difference between water birth and conventional delivery.
We also used multiple imputation to evaluate the
sensitivity of the
estimates obtained from the complete case analysis.
In a
sensitivity analysis, inclusion in the meta - analysis
of the assumed zero
estimates from the five studies (table 1) with no published mean differences attenuated the overall summary
estimate for systolic blood pressure (mean difference: — 1.0 mmHg, 95 percent CI: — 1.6; — 0.4; p = 0.002), but there was still strong evidence
of an inverse association.
Steven Sherwood
of the University
of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, and his colleagues looked at why different models give different
estimates of sensitivity.
The authors found that current conservation prioritizations do not correspond to their projected
estimates of climate
sensitivities.
To
estimate how much the
sensitivity varies, Gary Russell
of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and colleagues ran a climate model repeatedly.
It tries to turn a major factor in the uncertainty in climate
sensitivity estimates — the behavior
of clouds — into a strength.
This was a small, exploratory study, and was not designed to
estimate the
sensitivity and specificity
of the imaging method.
On previous
estimates of the climate
sensitivity, that is far too late.
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.»
Previously,
estimates of the
sensitivity of global temperature to a doubling
of carbon dioxide ranged from 1.5 °C to 5 °C.
When Otto calculated the climate
sensitivity from his data, he found it was about 2 °C — with a range
of 0.9 to 5 °C — well below the IPCC's best
estimate of 3 °C.
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.»
The IPCC wishes to destroy the world economy and starve the world
of energy and food at a cost
of $ 76 trillion over the next 40 year's (UN
estimate), to keep global temps below 2C, when even their wildly pessimistic and disconfirmed projections (formally known as predictions) now suggest that climate
sensitivity could be as low as 1.5 C, without spending a dime.
Well while they are «dialing back» their
estimate of «Climate
Sensitivity», that legacy
of presumably the late Dr Stephen Schneider, they might also consider the claim that: -
In the figure in this article below, 10 out
of 17 recent climate
sensitivity estimates are 2C or lower (3 IPCC
estimates counted as 1): http://www.cato.org/blog/current-wisdom-even-more-low-climate-
sensitivity-
estimates
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».
Olson, R., et al. «What is the effect
of unresolved internal climate variability on climate
sensitivity estimates?.»
Dr. Benestad states: «They take the ratios
of the amplitude
of band - passed filtered global temperatures to similarly band - passed filtered solar signal as the
estimate for the «climate
sensitivity».
They take the ratios
of the amplitude
of band - passed filtered global temperatures to similarly band - passed filtered solar signal as the
estimate for the «climate
sensitivity».
That study addressed a puzzle, namely that recent studies using the observed changes in Earth's surface temperature suggested climate
sensitivity is likely towards the lower end
of the
estimated range.
The NGN article itself gives a good explanation
of climate
sensitivity and the various studies and
estimates of it, and does quote Michael Schlesinger
of the University
of Illinois saying that Hegerl's result «means climate
sensitivity is larger than we thought for 30 years, so the problem is worse than we thought.
Therefore studies based on observed warming have underestimated climate
sensitivity as they did not account for the greater response to aerosol forcing, and multiple lines
of evidence are now consistent in showing that climate
sensitivity is in fact very unlikely to be at the low end
of the range in recent
estimates.
From at least Lorius et al (1991)-- when we first had reasonable
estimates of the greenhouse gases from the ice cores, to an upcoming paper by Schneider von Deimling et al, where they test a multi-model ensemble (1000 members) against LGM data to conclude that models with
sensitivities greater than about 4.3 ºC can't match the data.
About our
estimates of the climate transfer
sensitivity to solar variations at 11 years and 22 years, Dr. Benestad makes again a great confusion by misquoting and misunderstanding our paper.
He attacked mainstream
estimates of climate
sensitivity by a misapplication
of the Stefan - Bolzmann equation.
They used some crude
estimates of «climate
sensitivity» and
estimates of Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) to calculate temperature signal (in form
of anomalies).
Almost 30 years ago, Jule Charney made the first modern
estimate of the range
of climate
sensitivity to a doubling
of CO2.
And that is why they don't report that «climate
sensitivity is probably in the middle
of previous predictions» and do report «Climate
sensitivity may be twice scientists» previous
estimate.»
In your sixth last line, you've put the Annan and Hargreaves (A&H)
estimate of the lower bound
of the 95 % confidence limits for climate
sensitivity at 1.9 ºC.