Sentences with phrase «suggests climate sensitivity»

The bulk of recent research still suggests climate sensitivity values close to the most established numbers, numbers that have been around for many years.

Here is another interesting comment: https://judithcurry.com/2012/06/25/questioning-the-forest-et-al-2006-sensitivity-study/#comment-212952 This gives information on other work that suggests climate sensitivity may be significantly lower than the IPCC AR4 consensus estimate.

«The closest match, with a much lower degree of uncertainty than most other studies, suggests climate sensitivity is about 2.4 degrees.»

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.

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.

In this light paleo research is very important too — as indeed when one looks at high - CO2 warm periods (for instance in the Tertiary) some data seems to suggest a climate sensitivity that would be somewhat higher than the IPCC range.

However if «unknown feedbacks» and other forcings can explain an even greater proportion of past temperature changes, then researchers would be forced to suggest climate sensitivity to CO2 is much lower.

Nevertheless, each time a new research paper comes out suggesting climate sensitivity might be low it's misused by parts of the media to argue cutting emissions isn't so urgent after all.

In fact, the R2 between temperature changes and CO2 changes is absurdly low - again, suggesting a climate sensitivity to CO2 as being rather low.

From that insight and their calculations they conclude the low - climate sensitivity model studies (suggesting climate sensitivity best estimate around 2 degrees Celsius) should be revised upwards to 2.6 degrees following differences in efficacies from «instantaneous radiative forcing» — and further revised upwards to 3 degrees [the value most studies agree on] when climate forcing efficacy is calculated from ERF — «effective radiative forcing».

I'd suggest climate sensitivity would be the most important quantity to know.

Myles Allen suggesting a climate sensitivity of 2C..

Not exact matches

At the same time, new studies of climate sensitivity — the amount of warming expected for a doubling of carbon dioxide levels from 0.03 to 0.06 percent in the atmosphere — have suggested that most models are too sensitive.

Zeebe uses past climate episodes as analogs for the future, which suggest that so - called slow climate «feedbacks» can boost climate sensitivity and amplify warming.

The study's results suggest that sensitivity to changes in climate can not be predicted simply by knowing locations within the species» climate envelope, she pointed out.

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.

According to Meng, the results suggest that if we are to reduce climate losses on manufacturing output, adaptation measures should not focus solely on reducing the sensitivity of workers to extreme heat, but also that of factory machines.

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.

This suggests that Climate Sensitivity (if indeed such a concept exists) is at this stage of the Holocene with aprroximately 360ppm of CO2 (and over) is extremely low and may well be zero.

All of this suggests (ie., the reading between the lines postion) is that we are looking at Climate Sensitivity somewhere between 1.5 degC to 2degC, but not above that figure.

Accordingly, one can expect to see more papers between now and 2015 discussing climate sensitivity and all these will be suggesting lower climate sensitivity to that expresses in AR4.

Accordingly, this would suggest that Climate Sensitivity is no more than 1.6 degC, and not 2 degC.

The data is only 33 years in length, but based on that data, there is no first order correlation between temperature and CO2 during its 33 year period and this suggests that then signal to CO2 (ie., Climate Sensitivity) is so low that it can not be measured within the sensitivity, resolution and errors of our best current temperature meSensitivity) is so low that it can not be measured within the sensitivity, resolution and errors of our best current temperature mesensitivity, resolution and errors of our best current temperature measurements.

On the face of it the range of the IPCC models is centrally within the A&H 90 % range, but visual inspection of Figure 1 suggests that A&H find that there is about a 45 % probability that climate sensitivity is below the lower end of the range quoted by Meehl in August 2004 (Of course the IPCC draft report, which I have not seen, may include models with lower sensitivity than 2.6 ºC).

I'm not even an amateur climate scientist, but my logic tells me that if clouds have a stronger negative feedback in the Arctic, and I know (from news) the Arctic is warming faster than other areas, then it seems «forcing GHGs» (CO2, etc) may have a strong sensitivity than suggested, but this is suppressed by the cloud effect.

S&W presumes a desired conclusion when arguing that if the TSI variations are small but the temperature variations are pronounced, then this suggests greater climate sensitivity and vice versa.

This suggests that climate sensitivity may be higher than we currently believe, but it likely isn't lower.

However, there has been a bit of confusion generated though through the work of climateprediction.net — the multi-thousand member perturbed parameter ensembles that, notoriously, suggested that climate sensitivity could be as high as 11 ºC in a paper a couple of years back.

There is no analog for climate change as humans have triggered it, so our sensitivities are even less sure than the science suggests, even with Earth System Sensitivity since it also presumably doesn't account for rate of change nor the preconditioning the human presence has resulted in.

These models all suggest potentially serious limitations for this kind of study: UVic does not simulate the atmospheric feedbacks that determine climate sensitivity in more realistic models, but rather fixes the atmospheric part of the climate sensitivity as a prescribed model parameter (surface albedo, however, is internally computed).

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY: Robby Müller's work on Saint Jack was so unostentatious in its sensitivity to place, climate, hour of day or night, and the very temperature of colors, it immediately suggested itself as a model of the sort of miraculous cinematography never noticed by A.S.C. Oscar nominators.

The fact that temperatures have been very high when CO2 was low and vice versa suggest a weak causal relationship, i.e. a low climate sensitivity.

Empirical evidence suggests that there is a much larger external climate forcing than the Milankovitch cycles and this in turn implies that climate sensitivity must be much lower than currently believed.

Hansen for example suggested (at the AGU in dec 2008) that climate sensitivity is known more accurately than the other two quantities, whereas the more often heard trade - off (correct me if I'm wrong) is between aerosol forcing and sensitivity.

Balmaseda et al suggest that the recent years may not have much effect on the climate sensitivity after all, and according to their analysis, it is the winds blowing over the oceans that may be responsible for the «slow - down» presented in the Economist.

But I understand sea level rise right now is actually towards the upper end of estimates so this suggests either climate sensitivity is towards the high end, or ice sheets are very sensitive to low or medium climate sensitivity.

That may suggest a low climate sensitivity, thats all.

The sensitivity of the Earth system to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide may be twice as great as scientists had thought, new climate records from the distant past suggest.

The obvious answer (from someone who is indeed receptive to arguments for lower - than - consensus climate sensitivities) is that it was on a par with recent hot years because temperatures at US latitudes of the globe really weren't as much cooler in the 1930s / 1940s (compared to the present) than GISS / Hadley's best estimates (from often sketchy global coverage) suggest.

These results suggest that sea surface temperature pattern - induced low cloud anomalies could have contributed to the period of reduced warming between 1998 and 2013, and offer a physical explanation of why climate sensitivities estimated from recently observed trends are probably biased low 4.

But what the GSL now says is that geological evidence from palaeoclimatology (studies of past climate change) suggests that if longer - term factors are taken into account, such as the decay of large ice sheets, the Earth's sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 could itself be double that predicted by most climate models.

Allen and Frame suggest that the way to address this is though an adaptive climate change policy, in which there are movable CO2 concentration targets that can be revised downwards if future observations suggest that the climate sensitivity is indeed greater than the middle IPCC range.

«Late Pleistocene tropical Pacific temperatures suggest higher climate sensitivity than currently thought

These results could well be taken to suggest that climate sensitivity is so uncertain as to be effectively unknowable.

If indeed climate sensitivity is a significantly non-linear function of the base climate (as suggested above), then the whole concept is probably flawed.

There is nothing in the climate that suggests a negative sensitivity.

Can I suggest a short article on Forcing due to a doubling of CO2 and Climate Sensitivity.

We should not assume that the climate sensitivity is constant either, unless there are studies suggesting it is.

Is it possible to conclude from the increasing rate of warming since 1990 (including this year, with neutral ENSO, being as hot as 1998 with an intense El Nino) that climate sensitivity must be higher than, say, the lower end of figures suggested by models?

Feedbacks as discussed by Rind are applicable to all forcings, not just solar, and the idea that climate sensitivity is greater than S - B would suggest is well known.