Sentences with phrase «calculate equilibrium climate»

Especially since Lewis does not actually calculate the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity factor that is commonly referred to by the IPCC and paleo - climate analyses, but instead the on - going «effective» climate sensitivity as Gregory et al 2002 already pointed out.

In this context, the statement in REA16 that they do not calculate equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) «to avoid the assumption of linear climate response» is peculiar: they have already made this assumption in deriving model forcings.

chriskoz @ 2, you calculated the equilibrium climate response, wheras Dana calculated the transient climate response.

Not exact matches

The «equilibrium» sensitivity of the global surface temperature to solar irradiance variations, which is calculated simply by dividing the absolute temperature on the earth's surface (288K) by the solar constant (1365Wm - 2), is based on the assumption that the climate response is linear in the whole temperature band starting at the zero point.

Aslo, regarding climate sensitivity a very key thing to remember, especially if sensitivity turns out to be on the high side, is that the «final» equilibrium temperature (Alexi's concerns about there being such a thing aside) calculated from climate sensitivity does not take into account carbon cycle feedbacks OR ice sheet changes.

Regarding ECS («equilibrium climate sensitivity»), I think there are difficulties estimating anything truly resembling a Charney - type ECS from data involving OHC uptake and forcing estimates, because these estimates are fraught with so many uncertainties, and because the values that are calculated, even if accurate, bear an uncertain relationship to how the climate would behave at equilibrium.

One thing to remember is that the «equilibrium» temperature of the Earth is roughly 15,700,000 K. I arrived at this number using climate science physics, one simply calculates the «equilibrium» position of the planet Earth, and one finds that it should be in the center of the solar system, not orbiting it, and as we all know there is a star at the center with an average internal temperature of 15,700,000 K

From the forcing and the Climate Sensitivity Factor, the temperature impact of CO2 at equilibrium is easilly calculated.

Many palaeoclimate studies have quantified pre-anthropogenic climate change to calculate climate sensitivity (equilibrium temperature change in response to radiative forcing change), but a lack of consistent methodologies produces awide range of estimates and hinders comparability of results.

As with CO2, we calculate the equilibrium temperature change by multiplying the change in radiative forcing by the climate sensitivity parameter (λ).

Our calculated global warming as a function of CO2 amount is based on equilibrium climate sensitivity 3 °C for doubled CO2.

Standard texts make clear that they are deriving the change in the equilibrium temperature, without clarifying what, if anything, in the Earth climate system is represented by the calculated result.

Alternatively, you can take an estimate of anthropogenic effects (e.g. the calculated change in equilibrium climate mean temp), and from that you can derive a conclusion about the natural variation.

Transient climate response (TCR) and equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) were calculated by the modelling groups (using atmosphere models coupled to slab ocean for equilibrium climate sensitivity), except those in italics, which were calculated from simulations in the MMD at PCMDI.

We would expect the Gregory - ECS to be closer to the Transient Climate Response estimates since it is not calculated from equilibrium assumptions, and indeed it is closer to TCR.

But that section speaks of equilibrium climate sensitivity, while Dr. Orssengo is calculating dynamic values.