Comment on "Another look at climate sensitivity" by Zaliapin and Ghil (2010)
Zaliapin and Ghil (hereafter, ZG) claim that the linearity of the climate feedback model in Roe and Baker (2007) (hereafter, RB) invalidates our derivation of the well-known skewed shapes of published probability distributions (pdfs) of climate sensitivity. We show here that linearity is fully justi...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Copernicus Publications
2011-02-01
|
| Series: | Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics |
| Online Access: | http://www.nonlin-processes-geophys.net/18/125/2011/npg-18-125-2011.pdf |
| _version_ | 1818691303587708928 |
|---|---|
| author | G. H. Roe M. B. Baker |
| author_facet | G. H. Roe M. B. Baker |
| author_sort | G. H. Roe |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Zaliapin and Ghil (hereafter, ZG) claim that the linearity of the climate feedback model in Roe and Baker (2007) (hereafter, RB) invalidates our derivation of the well-known skewed shapes of published probability distributions (pdfs) of climate sensitivity. We show here that linearity is fully justified. Nonlinearity could be of some importance only if the focus is on exotic and improbable events, which appear to be the focus of ZG, instead of the sensitivity pdfs, which were the focus of RB. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-17T12:39:45Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-e36b034e70814c7ea8e5308528ad3423 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1023-5809 1607-7946 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-17T12:39:45Z |
| publishDate | 2011-02-01 |
| publisher | Copernicus Publications |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics |
| spelling | doaj.art-e36b034e70814c7ea8e5308528ad34232022-12-21T21:48:06ZengCopernicus PublicationsNonlinear Processes in Geophysics1023-58091607-79462011-02-0118112512710.5194/npg-18-125-2011Comment on "Another look at climate sensitivity" by Zaliapin and Ghil (2010)G. H. RoeM. B. BakerZaliapin and Ghil (hereafter, ZG) claim that the linearity of the climate feedback model in Roe and Baker (2007) (hereafter, RB) invalidates our derivation of the well-known skewed shapes of published probability distributions (pdfs) of climate sensitivity. We show here that linearity is fully justified. Nonlinearity could be of some importance only if the focus is on exotic and improbable events, which appear to be the focus of ZG, instead of the sensitivity pdfs, which were the focus of RB.http://www.nonlin-processes-geophys.net/18/125/2011/npg-18-125-2011.pdf |
| spellingShingle | G. H. Roe M. B. Baker Comment on "Another look at climate sensitivity" by Zaliapin and Ghil (2010) Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics |
| title | Comment on "Another look at climate sensitivity" by Zaliapin and Ghil (2010) |
| title_full | Comment on "Another look at climate sensitivity" by Zaliapin and Ghil (2010) |
| title_fullStr | Comment on "Another look at climate sensitivity" by Zaliapin and Ghil (2010) |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comment on "Another look at climate sensitivity" by Zaliapin and Ghil (2010) |
| title_short | Comment on "Another look at climate sensitivity" by Zaliapin and Ghil (2010) |
| title_sort | comment on another look at climate sensitivity by zaliapin and ghil 2010 |
| url | http://www.nonlin-processes-geophys.net/18/125/2011/npg-18-125-2011.pdf |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT ghroe commentonanotherlookatclimatesensitivitybyzaliapinandghil2010 AT mbbaker commentonanotherlookatclimatesensitivitybyzaliapinandghil2010 |