Sentences with phrase «carbon cycle response»

It's true that the main uncertainty there is human behavior, but at least the IPCC could attempt to answer questions like «Given such - and - such human behavior, what is the expected global carbon cycle response to that behavior?»

If fossil fuel emissions remain at today's levels, will the carbon cycle response be greatly different?

A continuing negative feedback carbon cycle response, in conjunction with restraint on human emissions, plus some luck with experiencing the lower ranges of climate sensitivity, could lead to climate change of, let's say, 2 °C.

Soil moisture variability intensifies and prolongs Amazon temperature and carbon cycle response to El Niño - Southern Oscillation, submitted.

Same kind of logic for carbon cycle responses.

Not exact matches

This study highlights the key role of vegetation in controlling future terrestrial hydrologic response and emphasizes that the continental carbon and water cycles are intimately coupled over land and must be studied as an interconnected system.

The picture may be even more complex, and a response in ENSO may even involve perturbations of the carbon cycle.

For this subsystem, many of the longer term feedbacks in the full climate system (such as ice sheets, vegetation response, the carbon cycle) and some of the shorter term bio-geophysical feedbacks (methane, dust and other aerosols) are explicitly excluded.

The climate sensitivity classically defined is the response of global mean temperature to a forcing once all the «fast feedbacks» have occurred (atmospheric temperatures, clouds, water vapour, winds, snow, sea ice etc.), but before any of the «slow» feedbacks have kicked in (ice sheets, vegetation, carbon cycle etc.).

For instance, the sensitivity only including the fast feedbacks (e.g. ignoring land ice and vegetation), or the sensitivity of a particular class of climate model (e.g. the «Charney sensitivity»), or the sensitivity of the whole system except the carbon cycle (the Earth System Sensitivity), or the transient sensitivity tied to a specific date or period of time (i.e. the Transient Climate Response (TCR) to 1 % increasing CO2 after 70 years).

We use the dynamic - sink pulse - response function version of the well - tested Bern carbon cycle model [169], as described elsewhere [54], [170].

M2009 use a simplified carbon cycle and climate model to make a large ensemble of simulations in which principal uncertainties in the carbon cycle, radiative forcings, and climate response are allowed to vary, thus yielding a probability distribution for global warming as a function of time throughout the 21st century.

These approaches, however, do not account for carbon cycle feedbacks and therefore do not fully represent the net response of the Earth system to anthropogenic CO (2) emissions.

The climate sensitivity classically defined is the response of global mean temperature to a forcing once all the «fast feedbacks» have occurred (atmospheric temperatures, clouds, water vapour, winds, snow, sea ice etc.), but before any of the «slow» feedbacks have kicked in (ice sheets, vegetation, carbon cycle etc.).

[Response: The models that include a carbon cycle and dynamic vegetation should have such effects — but this is still a rather experimental class of models.

[Response: First off, he is confusing models that include the carbon cycle with those that have been used in hindcasts of the 20th Century and are the basis of the detection and attribution of current climate change.

For this subsystem, many of the longer term feedbacks in the full climate system (such as ice sheets, vegetation response, the carbon cycle) and some of the shorter term bio-geophysical feedbacks (methane, dust and other aerosols) are explicitly excluded.

Polar amplication is of global concern due to the potential effects of future warming on ice sheet stability and, therefore, global sea level (see Sections 5.6.1, 5.8.1 and Chapter 13) and carbon cycle feedbacks such as those linked with permafrost melting (see Chapter 6)... The magnitude of polar amplification depends on the relative strength and duration of different climate feedbacks, which determine the transient and equilibrium response to external forcings.

Potential carbon cycle feedbacks (which are generally expected to be amplifying) go into the temperature responses and their uncertainty is a big part of the ranges given.

Response: I think these, what they would call carbon cycle feedbacks, are a major source of uncertainty.

There is uncertainty in the climate sensitivity of the Earth and in the response of the carbon cycle, and the papers are extremely useful in the way that they propagate these uncertainties to the probabilities of different amounts of warming.

When we say «positive» and «negative» feedbacks in the sense of radiation (so I'm not talking about carbon - cycle responses such as methane release from the oceans or such) we're referring to temperature - sensitive variables which themselves affect the radiation budget of the planet.

[Response: You could start with virtually any basic undergraduate textbook on the carbon cycle.

If so, I think we want to include tightly coupled chemical and biological processes, in that case — for example, the chemical fate of atmospheric methane over time, the effects of increasing atmospheric CO2 on oceanic acid - base chemistry, and the response of the biological components of the carbon cycle to increased temperatures and a changing hydrologic cycle.

Variability in the marine carbon cycle has been observed in response to physical changes associated with the dominant modes of climate variability such as El Niño events and the PDO (Feely et al., 1999; Takahashi et al., 2006), and the NAO (Bates et al., 2002; Johnson and Gruber, 2007).

Thus, these microscopic bacteria perform a huge function in helping determine the oceanic ecosystem response to the cycling of carbon under climate change.

So you take these data records and you try to model them, and you see immediately that if you run the carbon cycle and climate models there are serious problems if you assume the release was extremely fast [eg 13 years], because there's a big delay between the carbon input signal and the climate response.

Clearly, further research into the carbon cycle will be essential to reduce the level of uncertainty about the climate system's response to CO2 emissions.For further reading: R. T. Watson et al.: «Green - house gases and aero - sols» in Houghton et al., «Climate Change, the IPCC Scientific Assess - ment», Cambridge (1990).

Besides long - term changes, the response of the carbon cycle to millennial climate change is of special interest.

The policy problem is a chain of numbers, each of which can be assigned a clear, unambiguous, unmetaphysical estimated probability distribution: the emissions trajectory, the carbon cycle feedbacks, the climate response, the ocean chemistry response, the ice sheet response, the impacts, these are all quantitative.

He then examines the responses to various «slugs» of carbon entering the carbon cycle due to emissions and feedbacks.

This paper covers the historical experiments — comparing model results from 850-2005 to observations and proxy reconstructions — as well as some idealized experiments designed to measure metrics such as climate sensitivity, transient climate response, and carbon cycle feedbacks.

But the response of tropical forest carbon cycling to these droughts is not fully understood and there has been no detailed multi-site investigation in situ.

Chris, let us not forget that our actual big problem is pushing carbon cycle feedbacks into unprecedentedly fast responses.

The observational constraints are much more effective in constraining the short - and medium - term response of the climate — carbon - cycle system than they are at constraining the multi-century response.

We use the dynamic - sink pulse - response function version of the well - tested Bern carbon cycle model [169], as described elsewhere [54], [170].

M2009 use a simplified carbon cycle and climate model to make a large ensemble of simulations in which principal uncertainties in the carbon cycle, radiative forcings, and climate response are allowed to vary, thus yielding a probability distribution for global warming as a function of time throughout the 21st century.

Moreover the recent decline of the yearly increments d (CO2) / dt acknowledged by Francey et al (2013)(figure 17 - F) and even by James Hansen who say that the Chinese coal emissions have been immensely beneficial to the plants that are now bigger grow faster and eat more CO2 due to the fertilisation of the air (references in note 19) cast some doubts on those compartment models with many adjustable parameters, models proved to be blatantly wrong by observations as said very politely by Wang et al.: (Xuhui Wang et al: A two-fold increase of carbon cycle sensitivity to tropical temperature variations, Nature, 2014) «Thus, the problems present models have in reproducing the observed response of the carbon cycle to climate variability on interannual timescales may call into question their ability to predict the future evolution of the carbon cycle and its feedbacks to climate»

All original human CO2 is gone in about 60 years, while still about 10 % of the original peak in CO2 (100 % caused by humans) is measurable after 160 years... The measured response of the ocean - atmosphere carbon cycle in 1988 at 350 ppmv (60 ppmv above steady state) gives an e-fold decay rate of ~ 55 years: http://www.john-daly.com/carbon.htm» ANSWER: What is to be considered is the simple problem (the equation at the top of this reply) constrained by the four monthly time series (CO2)(t) and its delta13C (t), f anthropic (t) and its delta13C (t).

One of the propositions is the attachment of a carbon cycle model and the response function of the biological sinks (Southern Ocean etc) At ESD the editors have a biological systems (deep ecology) bias whic his why they had to publish where um the understanding is more limited.

Cao, M. & Woodward, F. I. Dynamic responses of terrestrial ecosystem carbon cycling to global climate change.

Even over the next hundred years, it is the response of the carbon cycle, ecosystems and ice melting to increased GHG and temperature is where the greatest uncertainties lie.

However, there is a wide range of response to CO2, even in the absence of climate change effects on the carbon cycle.

This millennial carbon cycle time scale should not be misinterpreted as the ice sheet time scale for response to a rapid human - made climate forcing.

The response of the carbon cycle to changes in temperature (and circulation etc.) is much slower (hundreds of years) and this is what you are seeing in the ice cores.

This increase is predominantly due to the response of the terrestrial carbon cycle to El Niño — induced changes in weather patterns.

[Response: I think carbon cycle feedbacks in general kind of ratchet up the scariness of the future, yes.

His work includes major field experiments on responses of California grassland to multi-factor global change, integrative studies on the global carbon cycle, and assessments of impacts of climate change on agriculture.

Although correlations between the growth rate of atmospheric CO2 concentrations and the El Niño — Southern Oscillation are well known, the magnitude of the correlation and the timing of the responses of oceanic and terrestrial carbon cycle remain poorly constrained in space and time.

We attribute this increase to the response from the terrestrial component of the carbon cycle — a combination of reduction in biospheric uptake of CO2 over pan-tropical regions and an enhancement in biomass burning emissions over Southeast Asia and Indonesia.