Sentences with phrase «talking about climate sensitivity»

And at that point, you really aren't talking about climate sensitivity any more since climate sensitivity would hold the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere constant.

BH: Some of them are talking about climate sensitivity at 1.2 C, at 1.5 C. I think this is completely implausible because the basic energetics of the climate system responding to the additional greenhouse gas emissions almost from simple physics, has to be at least 1.2 C and possibly more before you begin to take into account any of the feedbacks in the system from water vapour in clouds and so on.

Monty, Aren't you a little out of your field talking about climate sensitivity?

I also forgot to add that getting some real feel for the actual energy imbalance going on in the Earth system seems a better approach to talking about climate sensitivity than focusing on what we've now all recgonized are some very fickle tropospheric temperatures.

Well it depends on whether you are talking about Climate Sensitivity (Charney sensitivity... which is modelled) or Earth System Sensitivity (where things like ice sheet extent, vegetation cover etc are regarded as able to respond quickly to warming).

Dr Benestad talks about climate sensitivity, Stefan - Boltzmann law, non-linear physics, and I think he makes a great confusion.

Not exact matches

First that CO2 is the main climate driver, second that in calculating climate sensitivity the GHE due to water vapour should be added to that of CO2 as a feed back effect and third that the GHE of water vapour is always positive.As to the last point the feedbacks can not be positive otherwise we wouldn't be here to talk about it.

Since Hansen has been talking about all the different forcings for a while now (see above) and does not think that climate sensitivity is anywhere near 1 °C (let alone less), one might question who is actually playing silly games.

The definitions of climate sensitivity always talk about a «doubling of the C02 level.»

You appear to be talking about non-Gaussian distributions of climate sensitivity.

I think that the vast majority of lay readers who read the headlines and the text of stories on climate sensitivity do not know this and they simply presume that the scientists concerned are talking about their absolute best estimates of the possible temperature increases which may be faced.

Doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide is an oft - talked - about threshold, and today's climate models include accepted values for the climate's sensitivity to doubling.

Your estimates of climate sensitivity come from the IPCC, which assumes that aerosols will continue to provide a very strong cooling effect that offsets about half of the warming from CO2, but you are talking about time frames in which we have stopped burning fossil fuels, so is it appropriate to continue to assume the presence of cooling aerosols at these future times?

RealClimate has a new post up (gave up on Mann 2008 pretty fast) talking about global warming related to the continuing request for an engineering - quality derivation of climate sensitivity.

Lets talk about models» climate sensitivity.

I don't know what you are talking about regarding the climate sensitivities.

This is because, when we talk about carbon emission scenarios and climate sensitivity, we are ultimately talking about future risk management.

Scientists often talk about it in terms of the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), which is the long - term temperature increase that we expect from a permanent doubling of atmospheric CO2.

Scientists often talk about it in terms of the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), which is the

You may remember that in one of the UK House of commons sessions on AR5 WG1, he said that climate sensitivity was a bit like Katie Price — a lot of people were talking about it but it wasn't clear why.

«Myles Allen replied that climate sensitivity was not so important — rather like Katie Price, it wasn't clear why people were talking about it so much.

The author's points on non-linearity and time delays are actually more relevant to the discussion in other presentations when I talked about whether the climate models that show high future sensitivities to CO2 are consistent with past history, particularly if warming in the surface temperature record is exaggerated by urban biases.

This is why climate researchers talk about probable ranges of climate sensitivity.

capt. dallas, you have not understood my equation, and are changing the subject by even talking about entropy and 33 C. My equation applies to sensitivity around today's climate, not a hypothetical no - GHG climate.

If you've read Lindzen's talk at the House of Commons, you'll have seen where the IPCC completely agrees with his opening remarks about climate sensitivity.

You could go further and talk about tuning to «emergent constraints» for climate sensitivity, observational metrics that are correlated with climate sensitivity when looking across model ensembles.

For those who find talk about conflicting temperature datasets, CO2 ppms, «climate sensitivity,» squabbling experts, etc. too arcane, let us switch to — the polar bear, Ursus maritimus, that cute mascot that has been the cash cow and icon for the AGW disaster lobby.

Weitzman assumes a fat tail distribution, I am saying we don't know what the distribution looks like, and that we can probably bound it on the upper end (Wietzman's 20C climate sensitivity is beyond anything anyone is talking about).

Judith: Chris Colose keeps talking about standard (simplified) account for climate sensitivity, where some TOA «surface» determines emission temperature, which «determines surface temperature» via «average lapse rate».