Sentences with phrase «show climate sensitivity»
After having skeptics bang on for weeks that observations show climate sensitivity is less than thought!
https://judithcurry.com/
Pages 4 — 14 contain peer reviewed papers, many of which show climate sensitivity to CO2 to be 0.5 — 1.0.
I find it disturbing how many climate skeptics are promoting the Otto et al narrative («it shows climate sensitivity is less than the IPCC said!»)
Not exact matches
The focus of the training, delivered via professional - development workshops and phone - coaching sessions, was the personal interactions in the classroom between teachers and students; the coaches gave teachers strategies designed to help them build a «positive emotional climate» and show «sensitivity to student needs for autonomy.»
«The research shows that climate sensitivity was higher during the past global, warm climate than in the current climate.
Will Howard of the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre in Hobart has shown that some species of coral have a similar sensitivity to acidification as foraminifera in parts of the Southern Ocean, which are struggling to build their shells.
Research published last year by Professors Cox and Friedlingstein showed that these variations in atmospheric carbon dioxide can reveal the sensitivity of tropical ecosystems to future climate change.
A 2000 - year transient climate simulation with the Community Climate System Model shows the same temperature sensitivity to changes in insolation as does our proxy reconstruction, supporting the inference that this long - term trend was caused by the steady orbitally driven reduction in summer insoclimate simulation with the Community Climate System Model shows the same temperature sensitivity to changes in insolation as does our proxy reconstruction, supporting the inference that this long - term trend was caused by the steady orbitally driven reduction in summer insoClimate System Model shows the same temperature sensitivity to changes in insolation as does our proxy reconstruction, supporting the inference that this long - term trend was caused by the steady orbitally driven reduction in summer insolation.
Published in Science Advances, this research shows variation among species is attributed to differing sensitivity to climate change, and also because species vary in how much the climate has changed for them (their «exposure»).
Based on past observations, Held, who was not involved with the study, said the climate sensitivity of 5 °C or more shown by the new research may be implausible.
«To my knowledge, this is the first record that so clearly shows sensitivity to one set of major abrupt climate change events and not another,» said Cobb.
«I definitely think that we are seeing heightened sensitivity to the economy side of the economy - environment tradeoff,» said Scott Keeter, director of survey research at the Pew Research Center, adding that a number of other polls have shown a slight downward movement in numbers of people who list climate or the environment as a top priority.
The findings, which have been published in Nature, also show how climate sensitivity can vary over the long term.
«Broadleaf trees show reduced sensitivity to global warming: The response of leaf unfolding phenology to climate warming has significantly reduced.»
«Based on the satellite data gathered, we can identify areas that, over the past 14 years, have shown high sensitivity to climate variability,» says researcher Alistair Seddon at the Department of Biology at the University of Bergen (UiB).
Here we show how a factor of three uncertainty in climate sensitivity introduces even greater uncertainty in allowable increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration and allowable CO2 emissions.
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».
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.
We show elsewhere (8) that a forcing of 1.08 W / m2 yields a warming of 3/4 °C by 2050 in transient climate simulations with a model having equilibrium sensitivity of 3/4 °C per W / m2.
On the other hand, they do claim the greater changes were perhaps due to forcings & factors (solar radiation & volcanos), so would this then show greater climate sensitivity both to nature & us?
Second, one would have to show that those non-GHG forcing mechanisms are operating today in such a way as to allow the recent warming to be matched despite a reduction in climate sensitivity to GHG changes.
For example, a look at table 8.2 shows that equilbrium climate sensitivity 2xCO2 is 2,1 °C for PCM or INM - CM 3.0 and 4,4 °C for IPSL - CM4 or UKMO - HadGEM1.
Beyond equilibrium climate sensitivity -LSB-...] Newer metrics relating global warming directly to the total emitted CO2 show that in order to keep warming to within 2 °C, future CO2 emissions have to remain strongly limited, irrespective of climate sensitivity being at the high or low end.»
«the long fat tail that is characteristic of all recent estimates of climate sensitivity simply disappears, with an upper 95 % probability limit... easily shown to lie close to 4 °C, and certainly well below 6 °C.»
Rather, their analysis shows that if you compare the LGM land cooling with the model land cooling, then the model that fits the land best has much higher GLOBAL climate sensitivity than you get for best fit if you use ocean data.
Plotting GHG forcing (7) from ice core data (27) against temperature shows that global climate sensitivity including the slow surface albedo feedback is 1.5 °C per W / m2 or 6 °C for doubled CO2 (Fig. 2), twice as large as the Charney fast - feedback sensitivity.»
Well I find it sort of amusing (and a little tragic) that climate scientists (at least the blogger ones) are patting themselves on the back over their high standards of a press release that will just focus on the mundane «we also show a 3K sensitivity as most likely.»
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».
Dan has yet to acknowledged is that the fossil record clearly shows that the best value of the known feedbacks, whatever their «exact» values may be, are included in the IPCC's approximate estimate of the climate sensitivity, and that this is strongly supported by the GCMs.
We show elsewhere (8) that a forcing of 1.08 W / m2 yields a warming of 3/4 °C by 2050 in transient climate simulations with a model having equilibrium sensitivity of 3/4 °C per W / m2.
Finally, there is no good reason to widen the range, even though some studies have pointed to the possibility of higher climate sensitivity — but as we have discussed here, they did not provide positive evidence for a higher climate sensitivity, they merely showed that the data constraints used were weak.
Mountain and subpolar glaciers show an increase in sensitivity to climate warming and intensification of the water cycle.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0804.1126 «Paleoclimate data show that climate sensitivity is 3 °C for doubled CO2, including only fast feedback processes.
And while you are at it, please explain why the ice core records show a past climate sensitivity of about 3 degrees C.
We show that observed global warming is consistent with knowledge of changing climate forcings, Earth's measured energy imbalance, and the canon - ical estimate of climate sensitivity, i.e., about 3 ◦ C global warming for doubled atmospheric CO2.
If the influence of solar variability has been greatly underestimated, and the greater century - scale climate variability shown in some reconstructions is a) correct and b) due to that solar variability, then the climate sensitivity could be the same (or less) then indicated by other reconstructions.
They show that this places a strong constraint on our ability to determine a specific «true» value of climate sensitivity, S.
In my briefings to the Association of Small Island States in Bali, the 41 Island Nations of the Caribbean, Pacific, and Indian Ocean (and later circulated to all member states), I pointed out that IPCC had seriously and systematically UNDERESTIMATED the extent of climate change, showing that the sensitivity of temperature and sea level to CO2 clearly shown by the past climate record in coral reefs, ice cores, and deep sea sediments is orders of magnitude higher than IPCC's models.
Sensitivity analysis shows that future fire potential depends on many factors such as climate model and emission scenario used for climate change projection.
The fact that even model versions with very high climate sensitivities pass their test does not show that the real world could have such high climate sensitivity; it merely shows that the test they use is not very selective.
A new large uncertainty analysis that appeared this week in Nature shows that it is very difficult to get a climate sensitivity below 2 ºC in a climate model, no matter how one changes the parameters.
Additionally, there is little evidence that the rate of conversion of cloud water to rain actually changes with temperature, although Mauritsen and Stevens show that incorporating the iris into the model does improve the model's simulations of some aspects of the climate system (even though it doesn't change climate sensitivity much).
For example, I'd draw your attention to Figure 9.7, p. 766, of Chapter 9 of AR5, which shows significant differences in model performance, albeit not assessed in relation to climate sensitivity.
Calculating a climate sensitivity from the simulations that is directly comparable with that observed shows both are consistent.
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.
It's the same thing where some studies show low climate sensitivity and are outliers as well.
If climate senstivity to CO2 is eventually shown (rather than just assumed) to be close to the sensitivity to solar, I think a case can then be made that the GHG attribution should be equal or higher than the solar attribution, despite the large uncertainty in our knowledge of the increase in solar forcing.
As such, this is one of the arguments which supports higher climate sensitivity — in the 3C per doubling of CO2 range, although «per doubling of CO2» is just a metric, but it really means «3C per forcing equivalent to a doubling of CO2» (because, as this example shows, the initial forcing can be something totally unrelated to CO2).
Second, one would have to show that those non-GHG forcing mechanisms are operating today in such a way as to allow the recent warming to be matched despite a reduction in climate sensitivity to GHG changes.
[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.