Sentences with phrase «sensitivity over the temperature»

The reality was that it actually gave the correct answer for GISS climate sensitivity over the temperature interval tested.

Not exact matches

If temperatures do not increase, even more so should they fall, we will know that the case for AGW has been very much over hyped and that Climate Sensitivity is even lower than even the latest papers are suggesting such that the need to take any action is unlikely.

They then infer a higher temperature sensitivity to changes in radiance over this cycle and conclude that maybe 0.1 K temperature increase would be possible due to the variation in solar radiance, or about 30 % (if you push it) of the total temperature anomaly over this period.

Indeed, the main quandary faced by climate scientists is how to estimate climate sensitivity from the Little Ice Age or Medieval Warm Period, at all, given the relative small forcings over the past 1000 years, and the substantial uncertainties in both the forcings and the temperature changes.

Temperature during the winter as a whole have generally decreased over the past two decades, likely as a result of climate change, but the sensitivity of ozone loss to the exact timing of March warming events makes ozone depletion a much more variable quantity.

It is worth adding though, that temperature trends over the next few decades are more likely to be correlated to the TCR, rather than the equilibrium sensitivity, so if one is interested in the near - term implications of this debate, the constraints on TCR are going to be more important.

They conclude, based on study of CMIP5 model output, that equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is not a fixed quantity — as temperatures increase, the response is nonlinear, with a smaller effective ECS in the first decades of the experiments, increasing over time.

Over time, excessive training results in decreased adrenergic receptor sensitivity (making fat loss difficult and fat gain easier) and adrenal fatigue (as evidenced by fluctuating average daily body temperatures, decreasing blood pressure, low energy, joint pain and muscle loss).

Narrowly scoped, the present situation is either strictly caused by solar variations (in which case I believe the «solar variation» crowd will inappropriately gain credibility over the next 10 to 20 years as we work through the next below average solar cycle or two), or strictly caused by CO2 concentrations (in which case I believe the «CO2 concentrations» crowd will inappropriately lose credibility as the non-linear relationship (sensitivity is based on doublings, not linear increases) between increased CO2 concentrations, and forecasts for below average solar cycles reduces the longer term upward trend in global temperatures).

David@288, I'm just going with physics, and I don't see how you get enough negative feedback to get a negative sensitivity AND get 33 degrees of warming over Earth's blackbody temperature.

Shaviv and Veizer (2003) published a paper in the journal GSA Today, where the authors claimed to establish a correlation between cosmic ray flux (CRF) and temperature evolution over hundreds of millions of years, concluding that climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide was much smaller than currently accepted.

It is worth adding though, that temperature trends over the next few decades are more likely to be correlated to the TCR, rather than the equilibrium sensitivity, so if one is interested in the near - term implications of this debate, the constraints on TCR are going to be more important.

Transient climate sensitivity: The global mean surface - air temperature achieved when atmospheric CO2 concentrations achieve a doubling over pre-industrial CO2 levels increasing at the assumed rate of one percent per year, compounded.

Heat capacity that is «used» over a longer period of time (penetration of temperature change through the depths of the ocean and up to regions of upwelling) would leave a more persistent residual imbalance, but the effect would only just stall the full change to equilibrium climate, not change the long term equilibrium sensitivity.)

Indeed, the main quandary faced by climate scientists is how to estimate climate sensitivity from the Little Ice Age or Medieval Warm Period, at all, given the relative small forcings over the past 1000 years, and the substantial uncertainties in both the forcings and the temperature changes.

I sincerely hope that you are not serious in maintaining the following: The peak warming is linearly proportional to the cumulative carbon emitted It doesn't matter much how rapidly the carbon is emitted The warming you get when you stop emitting carbon is what you are stuck with for the next thousand years The climate recovers only slightly over the next ten thousand years At the mid-range of IPCC climate sensitivity, a trillion tonnes cumulative carbon gives you about 2C global mean warming above the pre-industrial temperature.

Second, the relationship we are seeing in the ice cores is made up of two independent factors: the sensitivity of the CO2 to temperature over the ice age cycle — roughly ~ 100 ppmv / 4ºC or ~ 25 ppmv / ºC — and the sensitivity of the climate to CO2, which we'd like to know.

Over very long time periods such that the carbon cycle is in equilibrium with the climate, one gets a sensitivity to global temperature of about 20 ppm CO2 / deg C, or 75 ppb CH4 / deg C. On shorter timescales, the sensitivity for CO2 must be less (since there is no time for the deep ocean to come into balance), and variations over the last 1000 years or so (which are less than 10 ppm), indicate that even if Moberg is correct, the maximum sensitivity is around 15 ppm CO2 / deg C. CH4 reacts faster, but even for short term excursions (such as the 8.2 kyr event) has a similar sensitivOver very long time periods such that the carbon cycle is in equilibrium with the climate, one gets a sensitivity to global temperature of about 20 ppm CO2 / deg C, or 75 ppb CH4 / deg C. On shorter timescales, the sensitivity for CO2 must be less (since there is no time for the deep ocean to come into balance), and variations over the last 1000 years or so (which are less than 10 ppm), indicate that even if Moberg is correct, the maximum sensitivity is around 15 ppm CO2 / deg C. CH4 reacts faster, but even for short term excursions (such as the 8.2 kyr event) has a similar sensitivover the last 1000 years or so (which are less than 10 ppm), indicate that even if Moberg is correct, the maximum sensitivity is around 15 ppm CO2 / deg C. CH4 reacts faster, but even for short term excursions (such as the 8.2 kyr event) has a similar sensitivity.

In short, whatever the initial climate sensitivity is to a doubling of CO2, I just can't buy off on this positive feedback loop idea that says that temperatures are going to spin out of control once we pass over some «tipping point» that only seems to exists in some scientist's theoretical model.

Rather than engaging in endlessly nitpicking, unproductive arguments over unknowns such as the logarithmic exponent describing the almost nonexistent / nonexistent effect of carbon dioxide on temperature, and the «estimate» of CO2 sensitivity, let's look at empirical evidence, and the big picture: CO2 is rising, and the planet's temperature is falling.

The climate sensitivity is defined as the equilibrated change in global mean surface air temperature (SAT) for a given change in radiative forcing and has been a major focus of climate research over the last three decades.

As far as i was aware the climate sensitivity issue still remains, as too do the questions over the validity of the temperature records (raising the distinct possibility that the change you are trying to detect is smaller than the error limits themselves) and the modelling parameters.

Steve Mosher, why should anyone in the industry employ Hockey Team member or likewise for their arctic endeavours, with the esoteric Hockey Stick shattered, sensitivity estimations currently falling apart, temperatures refusing to rise for over a decade and Watts / Evans about to prove that UHI in the US caused exaggerated trends by a factor of 2 or 3?

Everyone else who follows the science, yourself included surely, has to accept that climate sensitivity estimates almost certainly show CO2 to be the dominant driver of global temperature over the next 50 years.

@ - MSchopp» why should anyone in the industry employ Hockey Team member or likewise for their arctic endeavours, with the esoteric Hockey Stick shattered, sensitivity estimations currently falling apart, temperatures refusing to rise for over a decade.....»

If I understood Armour's paper correctly, he claimed that all feed - backs were close to linear in response to temperature over time, but that different regional warming rates (specifically, slow warming at high latitudes) could make the feed - backs and sensitivity appear to increase with time.

I note that 1) they can't easily go back and re-run all the climate model simulations with more accurate forcings, and 2) if they did, the climate models would be biased much too high relative to measured temperatures over the last decade, effectively proving that the modeled climate sensitivities are too high.

The most popular observationally - constrained method of estimating climate sensitivity involves comparing data whose relation to S is too complex to permit direct estimation, such as temperatures over a spatio - temporal grid, with simulations thereof by a simplified climate model that has adjustable parameters for setting S and other key climate properties.

This was my mental equation dF = dH / dt + lambda * dT where dF is the forcing change over a given period (1955 - 2010), dH / dt is the rate of change of ocean heat content, and dT is the surface temperature change in the same period, with lambda being the equilibrium sensitivity parameter, so the last term is the Planck response to balance the forcing in the absence of ocean storage changes.

Meaning, surface temperatures do not represent total heat of the entire atmosphere well, in this case the heat was really above, this drives surface temperature sensitivity quite wild over a longer time period.

He takes it as a proven given that temperature sensitivity to CO2 will be high, over ten degrees F for the likely CO2 increases we will see in the next century, which puts his «proven» climate sensitivity number higher than the range even in the last IPCC report.

Any lab data on sensitivity to «mean» temperature change of 0.5 deg C over a decade while the environment is oscillating over a typical temperature range that the coral would see in the sea?

I want to discuss the recent Kaufman study which purports to reconcile flat temperatures over the last 10 - 12 years with high - sensitivity warming forecasts.

Now that I look I see it says that with 3.2 sensitivity the temperature should only rise 4.4 C over current temperatures.

Therefore, even under this ultra-conservative unrealistic low climate sensitivity scenario, the increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past 150 years would account for over half of the observed 0.8 °C increase in surface temperature.

So if the current temperature stays at 1.2 C over the next 40 years, either sensitivity will get reduced in half or scientists will treat the climate as stable and move on to different topics, such as looking for alternatives to non-renewable fuels.

However the longer the pause in temperature continues the lower will fall climate sensitivity and If temperatures actually were to fall over the next decade then the whole edifice collapses anyway.

CO2 has a strong sensitivity to temperature and this is enhanced over continents by precipitation and therefore the average level of moisture in soil.

If you know a better practical method of determining sensitivity than observation of the shape of the temperature vs CO2 curve over more than 50 years, please let me know.

If there has been only a fairly small change in ocean heat flux over the last century and the ratio of global increase in surface temperature to increase in forcing is low (as the evidence certainly suggests), then it follows that climate sensitivity is low — perhaps of the order of 1.5 C.

C: increase in atmospheric CO2 from pre-industrial to present is anthropogenic (D / A) S: best guess for likely climate sensitivity (NUM) s: 2 - sigma range of S (NUM) a: ocean acidification will be a problem (D / A) L: expected sea level rise by 2100 in cm (all contributions)(NUM) B: climate change will be beneficial (D / A) R: CO2 emissions need to be reduced drastically by 2050 (D / A) T: technical advances will take care of any problems (D / A) r: the 20th century global temperature record is reliable (D / A) H: over the last 1000 years global temperature was hockey stick shaped (D / A) D: data has been intentionally distorted by scientist to support the idea of anthropogenic climate change (D / A) g: the CRU - mails are important for the science (D / A) G: the CRU - mails are important otherwise (D / A)

So the olr change, coupled to temperature and cloud cover over the last 3 years should give the data to estimate the climate sensitivity???

2) CAGW movement type models never reconstruct any lengthy past history accurately without creative and unique adjustment of aerosol values used as a fudge factor; that is why models of widely varying sensitivities supposedly all accurately reconstruct the past (different made - up assumed historical values used for each) but fail in future prediction, like they didn't predict how global average temperatures have been flat to declining over the past 15 years.

A prominent new example is a paper by [Shaviv and Veizer, 2003], which claims that fluctuations in cosmic ray flux reaching the Earth can explain 66 % of the temperature variance over the past 520 million years (520 m.y.), and that the sensitivity of climate to a doubling of CO2 is smaller than previously estimated.

Over geological time scales, the lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature places a clear upper limit of a 1.5 °C per CO2 doubling sensitivity.

Sensitivity equals dT / dF is only valid for an absolute temperature and absolute forcing over a small range of change and since the current «state of the artistry» «surface temperature average» requires using anomaly from very cold locations with very little energy per degree of anomaly, what «surface» is averaged impacts the estimate of «sensitivSensitivity equals dT / dF is only valid for an absolute temperature and absolute forcing over a small range of change and since the current «state of the artistry» «surface temperature average» requires using anomaly from very cold locations with very little energy per degree of anomaly, what «surface» is averaged impacts the estimate of «sensitivitysensitivity».

That the climate models are remarkably close to the observed temperature trend over the recent decade, taking into consideration all relevant factors, is an explicit demonstration that we can get this temporary surface temperature slowdown even when the Earth's climate sensitivity is around 3 °C per doubling of CO2.

As I wrote upthread, comparing CO2 alone to temperature over 750 million years now for these plots does not give us nearly a complete enough picture to draw any climate sensitivity on the basis of linear regression coefficients alone.

Does that 3 deg C «climate sensitivity» persist all over the earth's surface; regardless of what the surface temperature actually is?

A paper published back in 1998 and co-authored by Richard Tol and titled: A BAYESIAN STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF THE ENHANCED GREENHOUSE EFFECT dealt with climate sensitivity, even though the main purpose of the paper was to demonstrate: «This paper demonstrates that there is a robust statistical relationship between the records of the global mean surface air temperature and the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide over the period 1870 — 1991.»