Sentences with phrase «carbon feedback cycle»

Not exact matches

This is an important positive feedback on the carbon cycle (the exchange of carbon compounds throughout the climate system).

Many researchers are concerned that if old carbon begins to cycle it could create a feedback loop — its emissions contribute to warming, which again contributes to the thawing of more permafrost.

Incorporating this local variability of plant traits in the ESMs will lead to more accurate modeling of carbon cycle feedbacks.

«Our new simulation strategy paves the way for better understanding of the water and carbon cycles in the Amazon,» says Gentine, whose research focuses on the feedback between land and atmosphere.

General circulation models have generally excluded the feedback between climate and the biosphere, using static vegetation distributions and CO2 concentrations from simple carbon - cycle models that do not include climate change6.

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.).

Better understanding of feedbacks in the carbon and hydrological cycles are of great interest.

If it is not, and if we agree that there is (or eventually will be) a carbon cycle feedback, then it isn't.

Special attention is paid to feedbacks of physiological changes on the carbon, nitrogen, iron, and sulfur cycles and how these changes will affect and be affected by future climate change.

In the other direction, at higher temperatures there is expected to be carbon - cycle feedbacks, that will amplify the warming, so then the climate sensitivty would be higher.

Dufresne, P.M Cox, and P. Rayner, 2003: How positive is the feedback between climate change and the carbon cycle?

Friedlingstein, P., et al., 2001: Positive feedback between future climate change and the carbon cycle.

Another may be the raising of the temperature of permafrost which will release methane and carbon dioxide, increased moisture in the polar altitudes resulting in more methane in growing bogs, but there are other feedbacks to the carbon cycle.

Govindasamy, B., et al., 2005: Increase of the carbon cycle feedback with climate sensitivity: results from a coupled and carbon climate and carbon cycle model.

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).

Dufresne, J. - L., et al., 2002: On the magnitude of positive feedback between future climate change and the carbon cycle.

Then of course there is the feedback from the carbon cycle itself.

«There are known feedbacks in the carbon cycle that are not yet quantified, but that could add extra warming.

Despite claims to the contrary, the conclusions of the IPCC take CO2 fertilisation properly into account in the assessment of climate change feedbacks involving the carbon cycle, and in the assessment of the impacts of climate change on ecosystems.

To explore the potential importance of carbon cycle feedbacks in the climate system, explicit treatment of the carbon cycle has been introduced in a few climate AOGCMs and some Earth System Models of Intermediate Complexity (EMICs).

I'm increasingly thinking that what we really need is an estimate of the sensitivity of the system to an injection of carbon dioxide including the feedback from the carbon cycle etc..

Consequently, an international team of researchers led by Markus Reichstein, director at the Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry in Jena, Germany, investigated the influence of extreme climate events on the carbon cycle of land ecosystems and if the resulting additional CO2 emissions feedback on climate change.

«It's a vicious cycle of feedback where warming causes the release of carbon from permafrost, which causes more warming, which causes more release from permafrost,» Field said.

To benefit from this feedback loop [known as the carbonate - silicate cycle], of course, planets must be volcanically active and they must be endowed with adequate supplies of both water and carbon.

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.

Re the «peak fossil fuel issue», if all easily accessible fossil fuels in the ground are burned, atmospheric CO2 levels will hit 1500 - 3000 ppm (sink limitation issues and carbon cycle feedbacks create the variability).

By 2100, the ocean uptake rate of 5 Gt C yr - 1 is balanced by the terrestrial carbon source, and atmospheric CO2 concentrations are 250 p.p.m.v. higher in our fully coupled simulation than in uncoupled carbon models2, resulting in a global - mean warming of 5.5 K, as compared to 4 K without the carbon - cycle feedback.

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.).

It should be noted that in their projections the IPCC has not taken into account the positive feedback from the carbon cycle.

I think it is likely that the dominant difference is the carbon cycle feedback in a rapidly warming world which was not included in the IPCC figure you linked.

My impression was that the AR5 would use the Shindell et al. figure, but the reported figures are lower (20 year and 100 year figures of 28 and 84 w.o. carbon cycle feedbacks and 34 and 86 with).

Proposed explanations for the discrepancy include ocean — atmosphere coupling that is too weak in models, insufficient energy cascades from smaller to larger spatial and temporal scales, or that global climate models do not consider slow climate feedbacks related to the carbon cycle or interactions between ice sheets and climate.

The «slow feedback» sensitivity is likely to be higher (since carbon cycle, methane and ice sheet feedbacks are very likely positive), however, estimating that from paleo is tricky since we are moving into a new regime which hasn't ever happened before.

Further research will be required to investigate if this fluctuation carries features of projected future climate change and the CO2 growth rate anomaly has been a first indicator of a developing positive feedback between climate warming and the global carbon cycle.

General circulation models have generally excluded the feedback between climate and the biosphere, using static vegetation distributions and CO2 concentrations from simple carbon - cycle models that do not include climate change6.

The artic icecap is disappearing more rapidly than has been projected — as are the glaciers — and there is reason to believe that the positive feedback from the carbon cycle is already kicking in.

Specifically, changes in the Earth's tilt / seasonality that pace the glacial process and the carbon cycle feedbacks that change CO2 by ~ 100 ppm.

What we can see from stabilisation scenarios and the possibilities of positive feedbacks in the carbon cycle is that we don't have two decades to wait to get detailed information to enable us to make a near - perfect cost - benefit analysis.

If the CO2 rise is a carbon cycle feedback, this is still perfectly compatible with its role as a radiative agent and can thus «trigger» the traditional feedbacks that determine sensitivity (like water vapor, lapse rate, etc).

The carbon cycle today is actually acting as a negative feedback, absorbing our fossil fuel CO2.

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.

Under the A2 scenario (which would seem far more likely), eleven different models involving carbon cycle feedback were run.

However, in the global mean, these changes sum to zero (or very close to it), and so the global mean sensitivity to global mean forcings is huge (or even undefined) and not very useful to understanding the eventual ice sheet growth or carbon cycle feedbacks.

If it is not, and if we agree that there is (or eventually will be) a carbon cycle feedback, then it isn't.

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.

You claim (incredibly — in its original sense) that no - one takes this into account and by implication there can be no carbon cycle feedbacks to temperature.

This is with conservative assumptions (including no carbon cycle feedbacks), and other studies of this ilk predict higher temperatures.

i.e. something that could possibly happen (including carbon cycle feedbacks) but probably won't.

The resulting increased / decreased ice is amplified by «various feedbacks, including ice - albedo, dust, vegetation and, of course, the carbon cycle which amplify the direct effects of the orbital changes.»