Sentences with phrase «with uncertainty in climate sensitivity»

The IPCC's attribution statement does not seem logically consistent with the uncertainty in climate sensitivity.

Not exact matches

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.

(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.

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?)

It's the people who like curiosity - driven research in climate dynamics who have the real incentive to argue that there's a lot of uncertainty, because uncertainty allows people with strong intellectual curiosity to make the case that there's at least some tangential benefit of their work to the climate sensitivity problem.

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.

The agreement of this model with observations is particularly good and perhaps partly fortuitous, given that there is still uncertainty both in the climate sensitivity and in the amplitudes of the aerosol and solar forcings.

With an honest appraisal of the full uncertainty, also in the forcing, one must come to the conclusion that such a short period is not sufficient to draw conclusions about the climate sensitivity.

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).

How is the persistent factor of 3 uncertainty in climate sensitivity consistent with the IPCC confidence levels?

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.

The reason for the «wild range» of model predictions has much more to do with the uncertainty in how emissions will play out in the coming century than it does in the climate sensitivity to CO2 forcing.

In most cases, these range from about 2 to 4.5 C per doubled CO2 within the context of our current climate — with a most likely value between 2 and 3 C. On the other hand, chapter 9 describes attempts ranging far back into paleoclimatology to relate forcings to temperature change, sometimes directly (with all the attendant uncertainties), and more often by adjusting model parameters to determine the climate sensitivity ranges that allow the models to best simulate data from the past — e.g., the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM).

In fairness, there remains considerable uncertainty in aerosol effects, but if there will be real progress in narrowing the credible range for climate sensitivity, it has to come from reducing the still too wide uncertainty in aerosol effects, not from flogging climate models which assume aerosol offsets inconsistent with the best available measured effectIn fairness, there remains considerable uncertainty in aerosol effects, but if there will be real progress in narrowing the credible range for climate sensitivity, it has to come from reducing the still too wide uncertainty in aerosol effects, not from flogging climate models which assume aerosol offsets inconsistent with the best available measured effectin aerosol effects, but if there will be real progress in narrowing the credible range for climate sensitivity, it has to come from reducing the still too wide uncertainty in aerosol effects, not from flogging climate models which assume aerosol offsets inconsistent with the best available measured effectin narrowing the credible range for climate sensitivity, it has to come from reducing the still too wide uncertainty in aerosol effects, not from flogging climate models which assume aerosol offsets inconsistent with the best available measured effectin aerosol effects, not from flogging climate models which assume aerosol offsets inconsistent with the best available measured effects.

The blue line plots the mean carbon budget (across the 1000 samples) as a function of the uncertainty surrounding climate sensitivity (for this demonstration, climate sensitivity is expressed in units of KW - 1 m2, with a mean of.741 and variance as shown in the figure above.

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.

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).

It is not known to what extent these differences in land - surface response translate into differences in global climate sensitivity (see Chapter 8, Section 8.5.4.3) although the uncertainty associated with the land - surface response must be smaller than the uncertainty associated with clouds (Lofgren, 1995).

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.

Knutti and Hegerl in the November, 2008 Natural Geoscience paper, The equilibrium sensitivity of the Earth's temperature to radiation changes, says various observations favor a climate sensitivity value of about 3 degrees C, with a likely range of about 2 — 4.5 degrees C per the following graphic whereas the current IPCC uncertainty is range is between 1.5 - 4.5 degrees C.

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.

When you have huge economic issues and great amounts of uncertainty with regard to things like sensitivity to a doubling of CO2, feedbacks from evaporation (including increases in clouds and their feedbacks), not to mention regarding consequences, then a legalisitic, «does climate change exist or not» approach isn't the right way to think about the issue.

The uncertainty in climate sensitivity itself is in my opinion a good reason to demand reductions of global GHG emissions, because the possibility of «a dangerous interference with the climate system» can not be ruled out with high confidence.