Sentences with phrase «uncertainties in climate sensitivity estimates»

This bias may be explained by a misrepresentation of mixed - phase extratropical clouds, often pinpointed as playing a key role in driving global - cloud feedback and uncertainties in climate sensitivity estimates (e.g., Tan et.

It tries to turn a major factor in the uncertainty in climate sensitivity estimates — the behavior of clouds — into a strength.

Yeah, they're keeping that a huge secret: Section 8.6.3.2 of AR4 is called «Clouds,» and contains the statement «cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty in climate sensitivity estimates.»

Lindzen isn't highlighting that the large uncertainty in aerosol effects is responsible for much of the uncertainty in climate sensitivity estimates: he's making an unjustified claim that the aerosol negative forcing is small.

Not exact matches

Indeed, the main quandary faced by climate scientists is how to estimate climate sensitivity from the Little Ice Age or Medieval Warm Period, at all, given the relative small forcings over the past 1000 years, and the substantial uncertainties in both the forcings and the temperature changes.

(in general, whether for future projections or historical reconstructions or estimates of climate sensitivity, I tend to be sympathetic to arguments of more rather than less uncertainty because I feel like in general, models and statistical approaches are not exhaustive and it is «plausible» that additional factors could lead to either higher or lower estimates than seen with a single approach.

Probabilistic estimates of transient climate sensitivity subject to uncertainty in forcing and natural variability.

This is enough to matter, but it's no more scary than the uncertainty in cloud feedbacks for example, and whether they could put us on the high end of typical climate sensitivity estimates.

The IPCC range, on the other hand, encompasses the overall uncertainty across a very large number of studies, using different methods all with their own potential biases and problems (e.g., resulting from biases in proxy data used as constraints on past temperature changes, etc.) There is a number of single studies on climate sensitivity that have statistical uncertainties as small as Cox et al., yet different best estimates — some higher than the classic 3 °C, some lower.

Indeed, the main quandary faced by climate scientists is how to estimate climate sensitivity from the Little Ice Age or Medieval Warm Period, at all, given the relative small forcings over the past 1000 years, and the substantial uncertainties in both the forcings and the temperature changes.

Schneider, T., 2007: Uncertainty in climate - sensitivity estimates.

Sensitivity of the climate to carbon dioxide, and the level of uncertainty in its value, is a key input into the economic models that drive cost - benefit analyses, including estimates of the social cost of carbon.

Using a global energy budget approach, this paper seeks to understand the implications for climate sensitivity (both ECS and TCR) of the new estimates of radiative forcing and uncertainty therein given in AR5.

«uncertainty» (in the IPCC attribution of natural versus human - induced climate changes, IPCC's model - based climate sensitivity estimates and the resulting IPCC projections of future climate) is arguably the defining issue in climate science today.

Lewis says that «CLARREO's contribution of more accurate and comprehensive data is likely to speed up the reduction in uncertainty,» in estimates of climate sensitivity.

from the pdf: Using a global energy budget approach, this paper seeks to understand the implications for climate sensitivity (both ECS and TCR) of the new estimates of radiative forcing and uncertainty therein given in AR5.

Given current uncertainties in representing convective precipitation microphysics and the current inability to find a clear obser - vational constraint that favors one version of the authors» model over the others, the implications of this ability to engineer climate sensitivity need to be considered when estimating the uncertainty in climate projections.»

Nic invited me to coauthor this paper, and I was delighted to given my concerns about ignoring uncertainties in external forcing in attribution arguments and climate sensitivity estimates (which I discussed in the Uncertainty Monster paper).

I again used the variance in our estimate of climate sensitivity as an indicator of uncertainty — if you are unclear about what that means, refresh your memory here.

In context of the way climate sensitivity is defined by the IPCC, uncertainty in climate sensitivity is decreasing as errors in previous observational estimates are identified and eliminated and model estimates seem to be converging morIn context of the way climate sensitivity is defined by the IPCC, uncertainty in climate sensitivity is decreasing as errors in previous observational estimates are identified and eliminated and model estimates seem to be converging morin climate sensitivity is decreasing as errors in previous observational estimates are identified and eliminated and model estimates seem to be converging morin previous observational estimates are identified and eliminated and model estimates seem to be converging more.

Climate science has been thrown into disarray by the hiatus, disagreement between climate model and instrumental estimates of climate sensitivity, uncertainties in carbon uptake by plants, and diverging interpretations of ocean heating (in the face of a dearth of observaClimate science has been thrown into disarray by the hiatus, disagreement between climate model and instrumental estimates of climate sensitivity, uncertainties in carbon uptake by plants, and diverging interpretations of ocean heating (in the face of a dearth of observaclimate model and instrumental estimates of climate sensitivity, uncertainties in carbon uptake by plants, and diverging interpretations of ocean heating (in the face of a dearth of observaclimate sensitivity, uncertainties in carbon uptake by plants, and diverging interpretations of ocean heating (in the face of a dearth of observations).

These uncertainties may partly explain the typically weak correlations found between paleoclimate indices and climate projections, and the difficulty in narrowing the spread in models» climate sensitivity estimates from paleoclimate - based emergent constraints (Schmidt et.

and «no data or computer code appears to be archived in relation to the paper» and «the sensitivity of Shindell's TCR estimate to the aerosol forcing bias adjustment is such that the true uncertainty of Shindell's TCR range must be huge — so large as to make his estimate worthless» and the seemingly arbitrary to cherry picked climate models used in Shindell's analysis.

Changes in cloudiness in a warmer climate can be either a negative or positive feedback and the uncertainty in this feedback is the major source of uncertainty in the IPCC's estimate of climate sensitivity.

Gabi Hegerl did publish an estimate of climate sensitivity in 2006 based on a new proxy temperature reconstruction (only the last 700 years due to excessive uncertainty in forcings before then), which was cited in AR4 (Ch 9 of WG1).

While climate contrarians like Richard Lindzen tend to treat the uncertainties associated with clouds and aerosols incorrectly, as we noted in that post, they are correct that these uncertainties preclude a precise estimate of climate sensitivity based solely on recent temperature changes and model simulations of those changes.

Energy budget estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) and transient climate response (TCR) are derived based on the best estimates and uncertainty ranges for forcing provided in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Scientific Report (AR5).

Energy budget estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) and transient climate response (TCR) are derived using the comprehensive 1750 — 2011 time series and the uncertainty ranges for forcing components provided in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Working Group I Report, along with its estimates of heat accumulation in the climate climate sensitivity (ECS) and transient climate response (TCR) are derived using the comprehensive 1750 — 2011 time series and the uncertainty ranges for forcing components provided in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Working Group I Report, along with its estimates of heat accumulation in the climate climate response (TCR) are derived using the comprehensive 1750 — 2011 time series and the uncertainty ranges for forcing components provided in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Working Group I Report, along with its estimates of heat accumulation in the climate Climate Change Fifth Assessment Working Group I Report, along with its estimates of heat accumulation in the climate climate system.

A sound prior is a key ingredient in the process to reach a consensus low - uncertainty estimate of climate sensitivity to inform climate policy.»

«The assessment is supported additionally by a complementary analysis in which the parameters of an Earth System Model of Intermediate Complexity (EMIC) were constrained using observations of near - surface temperature and ocean heat content, as well as prior information on the magnitudes of forcings, and which concluded that GHGs have caused 0.6 °C to 1.1 °C (5 to 95 % uncertainty) warming since the mid-20th century (Huber and Knutti, 2011); an analysis by Wigley and Santer (2013), who used an energy balance model and RF and climate sensitivity estimates from AR4, and they concluded that there was about a 93 % chance that GHGs caused a warming greater than observed over the 1950 — 2005 period; and earlier detection and attribution studies assessed in the AR4 (Hegerl et al., 2007b).»

The results reduced uncertainty in proxy records and improved earlier estimates and contribute to our understanding of climate change today, especially the findings hint at a higher climate sensitivity to CO2 emissions.

[Response: It depends on time period etc, and is inevitably an estimate due to uncertainty in the forcings (particularly aerosols), ocean heat uptake and climate sensitivity.

These positive feedbacks accelerate global warming and also introduce uncertainty into estimates of climate sensitivity, say Gerard Roe and Marcia Baker of the University of Washington in Seattle.

We keep hearing from alarmists on here and elsewhere that «uncertainty» in estimates of climate sensitivity means that we can not disregard the high end estimates generated from the GCMs, meaning, effectively, that current urgent CO2 emissions reductions are justified.

climate sensitivity is provided as a range of estimates due to underlying uncertainty in the behaviour of some aspects of the climate system as the planet warms.

A brief analysis based on multi-gas emission pathways and several climate sensitivity uncertainty estimates», Avoiding dangerous climate change, in H.J. Schellnhuber et al. (eds.)

I would expect, if we could accurately and precisely measure / estimate climate sensitivity it would be a number with a very low uncertainty range for a given starting state, for example in the state the earth's climate is in now.