Sentences with phrase «standard estimates of the climate sensitivity»

As the comment from Covey et al makes clear, he is calculating a sensitivity to surface energy fluxes that is almost 100x larger than standard estimates of the climate sensitivity.

Not exact matches

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.

Assuming the same climate sensitivity, Lindzen's estimate of a 2.5 °C drop for a -30 W / m2 forcing would imply that currently doubling CO2 would warm the planet by only a third of a degree at equilibrium, which is well outside the bounds of IPCC estimates and even very low by most skeptical standards.

The standard modern estimate of climate sensitivity — 3 °C, plus or minus 1.5 °C — originates with a committee on anthropogenic global warming convened in 1979 by the National Academy of Sciences and chaired by Jule Charney.

The IPCC gets its 2 - 4.5 C climate sensitivity range from Table 8.2 of the AR4, which lists 19 climate model - derived equilibrium sensitivity estimates that have a mean of 3.2 C and a standard deviation of 0.7 C.

Using feedback parameters from Fig. 8.14, it can be estimated that in the presence of water vapor, lapse rate and surface albedo feedbacks, but in the absence of cloud feedbacks, current GCMs would predict a climate sensitivity (± 1 standard deviation) of roughly 1.9 °C ± 0.15 °C (ignoring spread from radiative forcing differences).

[8] I estimate GISS - E2 - R's effective climate sensitivity applicable to the historical period as 1.9 °C and its ERF F2xCO2 as 4.5 Wm − 2, implying a climate feedback parameter of 2.37 Wm − 2 K − 1, based on a standard Gregory plot regression of (ΔF − ΔN) on ΔT for 35 years following an abrupt quadrupling of CO2 concentration.