Sentences with phrase «c equilibrium warming»

They had built the first completely correct radiative - convective implementation of the standard model applied to Earth, and used it to calculate a +2 C equilibrium warming for doubling CO2, including the water vapour feedback, assuming constant relative humidity.

Not exact matches

I can understand that approaching equilibrium takes a long, long time, while TCR gives a better measure of what will happen over the next few decades (and that technology and society may be very different in 200 years time); but on the other hand, I thought nations had agreed to try to limit global warming to less than 2 degrees C overall, and not just to limit it to less than 2 degrees C by 2100.

A warming of 1 degree C is sufficient to raise the equilibrium line (below which net ablation occurs) by fully 300 meters.

Given those two factors and ignoring future emissions that will drive the temperature even higher, we are already over +2 C warming once we stop emitting short - lived coal smoke and other pollutants into the air and we give the Earth time to reach temperature equilibrium.

Multiplying by 1.06 gives 2.4 observed warming and 4.3 C at equilibrium.

The expected equilibrium warming for 550 ppm is 2 to 4.5 C according to the IPCC.

When I rephrased my question and gave some background to my reason for asking it, you went way outside your area of expertise and turned to stating your opinions (based on you ideological beliefs) about how much your tool says the planet will warm by 2100 (4.4 C you said based on 3.2 C equilibrium climate sensitivity).

The Earth's albedo reflects away about 30 % of the Sun's 1,368 W / m ^ 2 energy leaving 70 % or 958 W / m ^ 2 to «warm» the surface (1.5 m above ground) and at an S - B BB equilibrium temperature of 361 K, 33 C cooler (394 - 361) than the earth with no atmosphere or albedo.

The equilibrium warming from doubling CO2 is not going to be 3 ° C, which might marginally be considered a problem, but closer to 1 ° C, which will be beneficial.

This can lead to nearly 7 C warming after equilibrium is reached with the central IPCC sensitivity value.

For instance, separating transient and equilibrium into 50 year periods for simplicity, an 80 % transient on a 0.5 C total warming would cause 0.4 C warming in the first 50 years and 0.1 C in the next 50.

Now in the latter 50 years if you had 0.5 warming only 0.2 C of that would be transient so only 0.12 further warming to equilibrium would be expected.

I can understand that approaching equilibrium takes a long, long time, while TCR gives a better measure of what will happen over the next few decades (and that technology and society may be very different in 200 years time); but on the other hand, I thought nations had agreed to try to limit global warming to less than 2 degrees C overall, and not just to limit it to less than 2 degrees C by 2100.

The problem now is that the earth is no longer in thermal equilibrium, so even if the earth's surface did only warm up by 0.589 C initially, it is going to keep warming up until it achieves thermal equilibrium.

[Short response: Mainstream view is that climate sensitivity (equilibrium warming for a doubling of CO2) is 1.5 to 4.5 C, though higher estimates can not be discounted.