Sentences with phrase «work on climate sensitivity»

As for the points Ferdinand makes in his (large) comment, I still contend that Ferdinand is misinterpreting the work on climate sensitivity to various forcings, and the need to make the sensitivity inference consistent with what we know about the physics of the system.

Not exact matches

Sure, there might be a few papers that take climate sensitivity as a given and somehow try to draw conclusions about the impact on the climate from that... But, I hardly think that these are swamping the number of papers trying to determine what the climate sensitivity is, studying if the water vapor feedback is working as expected, etc., etc..

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).

One of his reasons to claim that «the risk of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming appears to be so low that it is not currently worth doing anything to try to control it» is that he uses a very low value for the climate sensitivity based on non-reviewed «studies», while ignoring the peer - reviewed work.

Now, forgetting entirely the more complex issue of «climate sensitivity» and focusing only on how tiny, minute concentrations of CO2 can make a difference to global temps — one of the oft - repeated and simplistic denialist memes — is there a simple desktop experiment to demonstrate how that can work?

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY: Robby Müller's work on Saint Jack was so unostentatious in its sensitivity to place, climate, hour of day or night, and the very temperature of colors, it immediately suggested itself as a model of the sort of miraculous cinematography never noticed by A.S.C. Oscar nominators.

We'll also dig into some of his peer reviewed work, notably the recent paper by Spencer and Braswell on climate sensitivity, and his paper on tropical clouds which is widely misquoted as supporting Lindzen's IRIS conjecture regarding stabilizing cloud feedback.

And now, work on clouds will narrow the climate sensitivity range.

One of his reasons to claim that «the risk of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming appears to be so low that it is not currently worth doing anything to try to control it» is that he uses a very low value for the climate sensitivity based on non-reviewed «studies», while ignoring the peer - reviewed work.

[T] here have now been several recent papers showing much the same — numerous factors including: the increase in positive forcing (CO2 and the recent work on black carbon), decrease in estimated negative forcing (aerosols), combined with the stubborn refusal of the planet to warm as had been predicted over the last decade, all makes a high climate sensitivity increasingly untenable.

Now, forgetting entirely the more complex issue of «climate sensitivity» and focusing only on how tiny, minute concentrations of CO2 can make a difference to global temps — one of the oft - repeated and simplistic denialist memes — is there a simple desktop experiment to demonstrate how that can work?

IPCC Working Group I — Workshop on Climate Sensitivity, Workshop Report École Normale Supérieure, Paris, France 26 — 29 July, 2004 pg 11

Here is another interesting comment: https://judithcurry.com/2012/06/25/questioning-the-forest-et-al-2006-sensitivity-study/#comment-212952 This gives information on other work that suggests climate sensitivity may be significantly lower than the IPCC AR4 consensus estimate.

In this work the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is estimated based on observed near - surface temperature change from the instrumental record, changes in ocean heat content and detailed RF time series.

In this work, we use a standard linear definition of climate sensitivity, which we state here, and go on to show how it can be derived from observational data.»

People who disagree with my work have told me so in forums (you can consider this also as peer review) and I have evolved my opinion eg on climate sensitivity.

Don't miss current discussions on further work by Nic Lewis on climate sensitivity and the IPCC estimates.

Nic's work is putting a number on transient climate sensitivity and comparing it to ECS, a non starter.

Contribution from working group I to the fifth assessment report by IPCC TS.5.4.1 Projected Near - term Changes in Climate Projections of near - term climate show small sensitivity to Green House Gas scenarios compared to model spread, but substantial sensitivity to uncertainties in aerosol emissions, especially on regional scales and for hydrological cycle varClimate Projections of near - term climate show small sensitivity to Green House Gas scenarios compared to model spread, but substantial sensitivity to uncertainties in aerosol emissions, especially on regional scales and for hydrological cycle varclimate show small sensitivity to Green House Gas scenarios compared to model spread, but substantial sensitivity to uncertainties in aerosol emissions, especially on regional scales and for hydrological cycle variables.

Plass was one of the first to revisit Arrhenius's work since Callendar, however his calculations of climate sensitivity to CO2 were also wrong, because, like Callendar, he focussed on the surface radiation budget, rather than the top of the atmosphere.

It would seem the GWPF is far more confident in its conclusions about climate sensitivity than the scientists on whose work its estimates are derived.

The probability distributions give a most likely estimate of 3 °C of warming for a doubling of CO2, and all pragmatic scientists tend to work on the basis that the climate sensitivity is not drastically more than that.

Annan's own work has focused on constraining the range of climate sensitivity values.

The Working Group III IPCC report [on mitigation which the Economist used in its most recent attempt to misinform on climate sensitivity] is no where near final, the final draft has not even been produced yet.

CAS = Commission for Atmospheric Sciences CMDP = Climate Metrics and Diagnostic Panel CMIP = Coupled Model Intercomparison Project DAOS = Working Group on Data Assimilation and Observing Systems GASS = Global Atmospheric System Studies panel GEWEX = Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment GLASS = Global Land - Atmosphere System Studies panel GOV = Global Ocean Data Assimilation Experiment (GODAE) Ocean View JWGFVR = Joint Working Group on Forecast Verification Research MJO - TF = Madden - Julian Oscillation Task Force PDEF = Working Group on Predictability, Dynamics and Ensemble Forecasting PPP = Polar Prediction Project QPF = Quantitative precipitation forecast S2S = Subseasonal to Seasonal Prediction Project SPARC = Stratospheric Processes and their Role in Climate TC = Tropical cyclone WCRP = World Climate Research Programme WCRP Grand Science Challenges • Climate Extremes • Clouds, Circulation and Climate Sensitivity • Melting Ice and Global Consequences • Regional Sea - Ice Change and Coastal Impacts • Water Availability WCRP JSC = Joint Scientific Committee WGCM = Working Group on Coupled Modelling WGSIP = Working Group on Subseasonal to Interdecadal Prediction WWRP = World Weather Research Programme YOPP = Year of Polar Prediction

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.

Our choices for climate sensitivity (2.5 K) and glacial maxima cooling (− 4 K) are both on the low side for such properties in other work cited above.

The TSD purports to rely on IPCC work as a basis for a supposed «sensitivity» of climate to increasing atmospheric C02, but fails to mention that the most recent IPCC report completely undermines any basis for determining climate sensitivity with the following statement: «No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.»

Since an assortment of the scientists Matt cites have already written the WSJ to complain of his gross misrepresentation of their work, his views on climate sensitivity seem damp as a squib in a Yorkshire coal mine, of which the Ridley estate owns several:

«Working on the IPCC, there was a lot of discussion of climate sensitivity since it's so important for our future,» said Shindell, who was lead author of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report's chapter on Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing.