Sentences with phrase «with climate sensitivity»

The results from this novel technique, just published in GeoResJ [1], accord with climate sensitivity -LSB-...]

Hence I set the uncertainty of the damage function to 65 % of the mean uncertainty associated with climate sensitivity.

In conclusion then, we can say that the fact that a simple model with a climate sensitivity of 1.3 deg C for a doubling of CO2 has the ability to hindcast as well as a GCM does not prove that the GCM is in error nor does it prove that the climate sensitivity is actually 1.3.

The system is non-linear, and so I've also got a bit of a conceptual problem with climate sensitivity.

In any case, again, figure 3 shows that if we stop all emissions now (and yes, Jim, that means completely stop emitting any more CO2, not just stabilize the rate we are emitting at now, unless I'm missing something), with a climate sensitivity of 3 degrees C we will see atmospheric CO2 levels remain at current high levels for centuries.

For so astute a scientist to even to begin to offer the undecided vote the hope of a trivially simple zero - dimensioned climate model and to settle on a process that comes up with a climate sensitivity that is so far out of whack with recent more sound calculations shows a truly naive insensitivity to the critical state of the climate - change dialogue.

Together these two feedbacks fully account for the global temperature swings from glacial to interglacial conditions (Fig. 2C), with a climate sensitivity of 3/4 °C per W / m2 of forcing, or 3 °C for doubled CO2 forcing.

For instance, two that were based purely on global energy balance estimates, with climate sensitivity assumed to be 3 K; three did not themselves actually estimate global aerosol forcing; and one turns out to have used a model with a serious code error, correction of which substantially reduces its estimate of aerosol cooling.

Calculated surface temperature for forcings of figure 5c with a climate sensitivity of 0.75 °C per W m − 2, compared with 2 × ΔTdo.

What is even more important than the fact that damage cost increases with climate sensitivity is to ascertain the functional form of that increase: Will a.5 °C increase of sensitivity from 2.5 °C to 3 °C incur the same additional cost as an increase from 3 °C to 3.5 °C?

The only difference between the two panels is the degree of uncertainty associated with climate sensitivity: The mean sensitivity is identical, but the spread (standard deviation) of the sensitivity distribution is greater in Panel B (standard deviation 2.5) than in Panel A (standard deviation.5).

There is a huge offset between the sensitivity for aerosols and the sensitivity for CO2, which makes it possible to retrofit the temperature curve of the past century with any climate sensitivity you like to have.

A paper published back in 1998 and co-authored by Richard Tol and titled: A BAYESIAN STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF THE ENHANCED GREENHOUSE EFFECT dealt with climate sensitivity, even though the main purpose of the paper was to demonstrate: «This paper demonstrates that there is a robust statistical relationship between the records of the global mean surface air temperature and the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide over the period 1870 — 1991.»

Same with climate sensitivity.

And it's worse with the climate sensitivity, which the models report as being from 0.5 °C per W - m ^ 2 to 1.9 °C per W - m ^ 2, a range of about four to one.

The paper confirms that realworld observations can be matched by a linear feedback model with a climate sensitivity of something less than1.6 deg K / doubling of CO2.

That is the central climate sensitivity estimate from climate models [1], and it is consistent with climate sensitivity inferred from Earth's climate history [51]--[52].

Had Hansen used a climate model with a climate sensitivity of approximately 3.4 °C for 2xCO2 (at least in the short - term, it's likely larger in the long - term due to slow - acting feedbacks), he would have projected the ensuing rate of global surface temperature change accurately.

The broader issue with climate sensitivity is this.

I hope I've changed how you look at this diagram and how you consider the uncertainty associated with 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.

I wish I could find the posting here where I went through the back - of - envelope energy flux calcs (justifying why I am a lukewarmer either to RKS or Dung) and came up with a climate sensitivity not a million miles away from this figure:)

Studies that start with climate sensitivity being equally distributed in some interval (for example 1 — 10 °C) yield PDFs of S with longer tails than those that sample models that are uniformly distributed in feedbacks (that is, the inverse of S (refs [Murphy 2004, Forster 2006]-RRB--RRB-.

With a climate sensitivity of roughly 1 from «settled» CO2 science, some evidence for natural shifts in global climate of 0.5 - 1.0 degK, and a fair amount of uncertainty in feedbacks, my Italian flag (based on physics) will probably be mostly white if climate sensitivity is > 2.5.

Check my comment below which contains SAW filter parameters which perfectly reproduce the temperature record with a climate sensitivity of ZERO.

Isn't it rather chapter 12 which deals with climate sensitivity.

It would certainly help in terms of natural climate variability, but I don't think it is going to help with climate sensitivity.

For instance, perfect initialization of the state of the Atlantic ocean, a correct simulation of the next 10 years of the solar cycle, a proper inclusion of stratospheric water vapor, etc may be important for whether the next 5 years are warmer than the previous 5, but it has nothing to do with climate sensitivity, water vapor feedback, or other issues.

Then, if you scale the Antarctic temperature change to a global temperature change, then the global climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 becomes 2 - 3 degrees C, perfectly in line with the climate sensitivity given by IPCC (and known from Arrhenius's calculations more than 100 years ago).

Secondly it seems really important to me for the wider discussion (beyond just the topic of this thread) that some estimate of the «uncertain» potentiating effect of predicted temperature increases be provided and integrated with the climate sensitivity predictions so that we can have a statement that actually attempts to predict possible real world temperature increases.

simple «model» and with a climate sensitivity of 0.75 °C.

with a climate sensitivity of 0.75 °C.

There are > 20 global climate models — not one of which works with a climate sensitivity of < 2 K per doubling of CO2.

Lindzen and Giannitsis (2002) pose the hypothesis that the rapid change in tropospheric (850 — 300 hPa) temperatures around 1976 triggered a delayed response in surface temperature that is best modelled with a climate sensitivity of less than 1 °C.

Then, if you scale the Antarctic temperature change to a global temperature change, then the global climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 becomes 2 - 3 degrees C, perfectly in line with the climate sensitivity given by IPCC (and known from Arrhenius's calculations more than 100 years ago).

New paper mixing «climate feedback parameter» with climate sensitivity... «climate feedback parameter was estimated to 5.5 ± 0.6 W m − 2 K − 1» «Another issue to be considered in future work should be that the large value of the climate feedback parameter according to this work disagrees with much of the literature on climate sensitivity (Knutti and Hegerl, 2008; Randall et al., 2007; Huber et al., 2011).

Govindasamy, B., et al., 2005: Increase of the carbon cycle feedback with climate sensitivity: results from a coupled and carbon climate and carbon cycle model.

The warming is also consistent with climate sensitivities estimated from warming events in the historical past, and in the paleo record.

As shown in Figure 2, the IPCC FAR ran simulations using models with climate sensitivities (the total amount of global surface warming in response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2, including amplifying and dampening feedbacks) correspoding to 1.5 °C (low), 2.5 °C (best), and 4.5 °C (high).

The IPCC FAR ran simulations using models with climate sensitivities (the total amount of global surface warming in response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2, including amplifying and dampening feedbacks) of 1.5 °C (low), 2.5 °C (best), and 4.5 °C (high) for doubled CO2 (Figure 1).

That difference represents a substantial reconciliation with the climate sensitivities shown by climate models and other lines of evidence.

Not exact matches

An example was Climate Dialogue, which published contributions from scientists with differing views on topics such as climate sensiClimate Dialogue, which published contributions from scientists with differing views on topics such as climate sensiclimate sensitivity.

They used two different climate models, each with a different sensitivity to carbon dioxide, to project California's future under two scenarios: an optimistic one, in which we only double the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere — since the 19th century we've already increased it by about a third — and a pessimistic scenario, in which we more than triple CO2.

A 2000 - year transient climate simulation with the Community Climate System Model shows the same temperature sensitivity to changes in insolation as does our proxy reconstruction, supporting the inference that this long - term trend was caused by the steady orbitally driven reduction in summer insoclimate simulation with the Community Climate System Model shows the same temperature sensitivity to changes in insolation as does our proxy reconstruction, supporting the inference that this long - term trend was caused by the steady orbitally driven reduction in summer insoClimate System Model shows the same temperature sensitivity to changes in insolation as does our proxy reconstruction, supporting the inference that this long - term trend was caused by the steady orbitally driven reduction in summer insolation.

[Drew T. Shindell, Inhomogeneous forcing and transient climate sensitivity] That means climate change with an increase of more than a degree Celsius compared with the last century is very likely already.

The model had a fairly high climate sensitivity to begin with, predicting a warming of 5.15 °C.

Yet even with those caveats, Shell praised the approach laid out in the new research as a «simple diagnostic... [and] an encouraging step that links observations to climate sensitivity.»

When the scientists compared the output of climate models with a decade of satellite measurements of relative humidity, they found that the models that best reproduced observed conditions were built on the premise that climate sensitivity is relatively high — 7 degrees F or more.

Isaac Held, a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration climate scientist, said he agreed with the researchers about the «the importance of getting the ice - liquid ratio in mixed - phase clouds right,» but he doesn't agree that global climate models generally underestimate climate sensitivity.

Based on past observations, Held, who was not involved with the study, said the climate sensitivity of 5 °C or more shown by the new research may be implausible.