Sentences with phrase «times higher climate sensitivity»

The scare story about methane is based on an imaginary 72 times higher climate sensitivity than CO2.

Not exact matches

First, how do you reconcile a high climate sensitivity (say 3 - 5 C / doubling) with the fact that there is very low correlation between CO2 and climate in the 500 million time scale?

Finally, the amplitude of internal variability isn't independent of climate sensitivity, so it seems that by positing a mysterious source of high - amplitude, low - frequency variability and a low climate sensitivity, Judith wants to have her cake and eat it at the same time.

also suggsts a higher climate sensitivity than 3C as do a multitude of papers looking at the past climates and there must be a lag in temperature rise and tree invasion of regions which might well mean that Northern areas are actually hotter than they have been for a long time, it just taking time for the proxies to catch up by growing.

«Our study shows that very high climate sensitivities are virtually impossible, suggesting that we still have enough time to deal with the problem and reduce carbon emissions, which could avoid the most severe impacts,» said Andreas Schmittner, a climate scientist at Oregon State University and the study's lead author.

This lag is known as the difference between transient climate sensitivity (TCS), which is immediate warming, and equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), which includes the lag time and can be much higher.

The timing and level of mitigation to reach a given temperature stabilisation level is earlier and more stringent if climate sensitivity is high than if it is low.

Even then if climate sensitivity is high then it is time to stop emitting CO2.

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.

The Charney report also considered paleoclimate studies which demonstrated at least a 3C climate sensitivity — higher likely due to the long time scales involved.

This was very likely because Hansen's models used a climate sensitivity that was two times too high.

The activists who have tried to dominate the discussion of climate change for more than twenty years have insisted that this sensitivity is high, and will amplify the warming caused by CO2 by 3, 4 or even 10 times the 1C of warming provided by a doubling of CO2 alone.

A world with a relatively low climate sensitivity — say in the range of 2 C — but with high emissions and with atmospheric concentrations three to four times those of pre-industrial levels is still probably a far different planet than the one we humans have become accustomed to.

For the warmists here, I agree that the remarkable co-incidence of a reversal of the natural warming trend might possibly have occurred at the same time that anthropogenic CO2 levels accelerated, thereby masking a high climate sensitivity.

suggests that, in a centennial (as opposed to millennial or more) time frame, climate sensitivity is much higher for land than ocean, and hence should be higher for the Northern Hemisphere than the Southern.

Skeptics have argued for quite some time that climate models assume too high of a sensitivity of temperature to CO2 — in other words, while most of us agree that Co2 increases can affect temperatures somewhat, the models assume temperature to be very sensitive to CO2, in large part because the models assume that the world's climate is dominated by positive feedback.

I am losing my mind every time somebody suggests, that warmer MWP (than Mann et al) would mean higher climate sensitivity.

Then, you would have the global climate models that offer a higher equilibrium climate sensitivity and longer time constants.

The way I interpret that is that the higher climate sensitivity must either involve different heat transfer modes / patterns, or that it involves a different temperature rise path, with more of the increase backloaded (ie if most of the increase for high sensitivity comes after 2070, then there's less time for the oceans to equilibrate than there would be, if most of the temperature increase was done by 2030).

This means that the climate models are essentially throwing out historical experience and assuming that sensitivity is 1.5 to 2 times higher going forward, despite the fact a diminishing return relationship says it should be lower.