Sentences with phrase «understand climate sensitivity»

So understanding how the earth's surfaces accommodates an increased flux of heat is key to understanding climate sensitivity IMO, and using the surface forcing seems to be the logical way to approach this.

Not exact matches

Together, they will help us truly understand the natural sensitivity of Earth system and provide a better framework for predicting future climate change.»

My understanding of climate sensitivity is that it is dynamic in nature.

The amount of warming c.q. climate sensitivity will not much interest politicians, until they understand that it's very very very probable that it will remain below their self - defined danger threshold of 2 C.

As I understand the leak, there is no claim that climate sensitivity is «likely» above 2degC.

In addition, our deficient understanding of aerosol forcing also hinders our ability to use the modern temperature record to constrain the «climate sensitivity» — the operative parameter in determining exactly how much warming will result from a given increase in CO2 concentration.

While I have a better understanding than most on issues related to climate sensitivity, I would benefit from a direct, clear discussion of the relative importance of the forcing agents as they relate to the temperature record.

If I understand my physics correctly, the black body emitter case (ie the idealized S - B case) would be necessarily the lower bound for climate sensitivity.

Better understanding of how clouds affect climate sensitivity is clearly important, etc..

In fact, scientists have long recognized the importance of solar variability as one of the factors governing climate (see the very scholarly review of the subject by Bard and Frank, available here at EPSL or here as pdf) An understanding of solar variability needs to be (and is) taken into account in attribution of climate change of the past century, and in attempts to estimate climate sensitivity from recent climate variations.

As I understand it, the observable (short term) climate sensitivity is a bit too low to be reasonable and hence much of the thermal excess must be being stored in the oceans.

Note that the observational approach needs to assume a constant climate sensitivity between different states, whereas perturbed physics ensembles don't (though you still need to understand what feedback processes are important between different climate states to have confidence in the results).

The top priorities should be reducing uncertainties in climate sensitivity, getting a better understanding of the effect of climate change on atmospheric circulation (critical for understanding of regional climate change, changes in extremes) and reducing uncertainties in radiative forcing — particularly those associated with aerosols.

Absent understanding of cloud feedback processes, the best you can really do is mesh it into the definition of the emergent climate sensitivity, but I think probing (at least some of) the uncertainties in effects like this is one of the whole points of these ensemble - based studies.

The warming effect of CO2 on climate is physically well - understood, and the sensitivity of global temperature to CO2 is independently confirmed by paleoclimatic data, see e.g. Rohling et al. 2012 or the brand - new paper by Friedrich et al. 2016 (here is a nice write - up on this paper from Peter Hannam in the Sydney Morning Herald).

Andrew (# 25): I think one key for untangling climate system inertia and climate sensitivity is to improve our understanding of how heat is entering the oceans.

My presentation is designed to give a lay audience a good understanding of how greenhouse gasses work, and why we know the value of climate sensitivity.

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.

Climate forcing and climate sensitivity are two key factors in understanding Earth's cClimate forcing and climate sensitivity are two key factors in understanding Earth's cclimate sensitivity are two key factors in understanding Earth's climateclimate.

They have very little to do with the long term trend (driven by fossil fuel burning) but are important for understanding the sensitivity of the carbon cycle to changes in climate.

It is important to realize that the nature of CO2's lead / lag relationship with Antarctica is insightful for our understanding of carbon cycle dynamics and the sequence of events that occur during a deglaciation, but it yields very little information about climate sensitivity.

It is my understanding that the uncertainties regarding climate sensitivity to a nominal 2XCO2 forcing is primarily a function of the uncertainties in (1) future atmospheric aerosol concentrations; both sulfate - type (cooling) and black carbon - type (warming), (2) feedbacks associated with aerosol effects on the properties of clouds (e.g. will cloud droplets become more reflective?)

Abstract: «Understanding how global temperature changes with increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, or climate sensitivity, is of central importance to climate change research.

And once we're on that positive feedback track for good, it's just a matter of time (which climate sensitivity can help us understand, but only in part) before it gets really really bad.

The approximately 20 - year lag (between atmospheric CO2 concentration change and reaching equilibrium temperature) is an emerging property (just like sensitivity) of the global climate system in the GCM models used in the paper I linked to above, if I understood it correctly.

It is because their ideologically driven insistence on a low CO2 sensitivity makes their outlook impotent when it comes to understanding climate.

Serious question, I'm still as an amateur wrestling with understanding what «climate sensitivity» takes into account.

I still do not correctly understand how the calculation of CO2 sensitivity in past or present climates can be independant from the estimation of the other forcings related to temperature trends (and from natural / chaotic variability).

According to the society, Dr. Hansen received the 2009 Carl Gustaf Rossby Research Medal «for outstanding contributions to climate modeling, understanding climate change forcings and sensitivity, and for clear communication of climate science in the public arena.»

So, as far I as (try to slowly) understand, XXth century (even the last 1000 years) is unuseful to estimate empirically climate sensitivity because of the too slight variations involved.

All reputable scientists in this area know and acknowledge that there remain uncertainties with respect to climate sensitivity (how warm, how fast in response to a given level of GHGs)-- indeed that's where most of the research is going — along with a better understanding of the speed of impacts (e.g. ice loss).

My colleagues and I are continuing to explore sensitivities to choices made in estimating such PDFs of climate system properties given their importance in understanding potential risks of future climate change.

As I understand, climate sensitivity can be obtained both from models and observations.

The wikipedia article on Climate Sensitivity states that the transient climate sensitivity is lower than equilibrium climate sensitivity which I do not quite undeClimate Sensitivity states that the transient climate sensitivity is lower than equilibrium climate sensitivity which I do not quite Sensitivity states that the transient climate sensitivity is lower than equilibrium climate sensitivity which I do not quite undeclimate sensitivity is lower than equilibrium climate sensitivity which I do not quite sensitivity is lower than equilibrium climate sensitivity which I do not quite undeclimate sensitivity which I do not quite sensitivity which I do not quite understand.

It's just that we do not know what the sensitivity really is, because we do not understand all the many factors (natural as well as man - made) that influence our planet's climate.

20.5 Some implications of the revised understanding of Climate Sensitivity are spelled out in the text.

It serves to show individual climate sensitivity studies are never conclusive but add up bits of fresh understanding to an already enormous pile of data and knowledge.

I think a better line of argument for you would be that Hansen's model used a climate sensitivity of 4C for a doubling of CO2, as I understand it.

Yes, and I suppose when they do they will understand you can't ignore a troposphere that isn't warming at the appropriate rate to the surface; you can't ignore a stratosphere that isn't cooling at the appropriate rate per decade; you can't ignore an ocean that isn't warming despite an assumed large energy imbalance; you can't ignore that if you declare a long lag time or a large long term climate sensitivity then previous forcings are subject to the same principles; and you can't ignore that the rate of warming was no different this last time then the time before it and the time before that.

The climate sensitivity is an important parameter we must consider, but engineers and economists don't need certaintity to start planning, we just need to understand the uncertainty exists.

There can be a whole plethora of nulls — «climate sensitivity is less than 3.5 ° K,» «cloud feedbacks are not positive,» etc. — and confirming or rejecting these can accumulate to an understanding that humans are or are not affecting climate.

3 - These assumptions themselves are based on assumptions (that internal forcings have no influence and that forcing is external and that we understand the effects this will have - inc. climate sensitivity) 4 - THESE assumptions are based on the assumption that we know enough about the system to make these sort of judgements.

@Jeff Id From what I now understand about the relationship between IPCC and UNFCCC (IPCC provides the basis for Paris next year) it indeed can take a while before the «insights» about climate sensitivity will be accepted and more important — highlighted — by IPCC.

This would then have obvious implications for our understanding of things such as the climate sensitivity and natural climate variability.

lolwot Reading the Gregory et al. (2002) paper, which uses an essentially identical method of estimating climate sensitivity to that which I use, may help your understanding.

I can see the equation calculates something in units of C / wm -2 but I can't understand how and why it is 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.

Can you say if this work changes our understanding of the central estimate or uncertainty of climate sensitivity?

Your comments demonstrate you haven't even the most basic understanding of either economics, electricity systems, electricity generation costing methods or energy more generally, I'd suggest you spend some time trying to get some background to these issues before wasting more time on climate sensitivity.

«The fact that there is a distribution of future climate changes arises not only because of incomplete understanding of the climate system (e.g. the unknown value of the climate sensitivity, different climate model responses, etc.), but also because of the inherent unpredictability of climate (e.g. unknowable future climate forcings and regional differences in the climate system response to a given forcing because of chaos).