Sentences with phrase «climate equilibrium point»

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.

Question: before talking about simulating climate CHANGE, how long does the climate science community expect it to take before GCM's can reproduce the real world climate PRIOR to human induced CO2 perturbation in terms of: — «equilibrium point», i.e. without artificial flux adjustment to avoid climatic drift, — «natural variability», in terms of, for instance, the Hurst coefficient at different locations on the planet?

(There are equilibrium climates between the points where the runaway starts and where it ends, but they are unstable equilibria, and the equilibrium coverage of snow / ice increases with forcing that would cause warming.)

What could hypothetically happen if a very large change in GHG amount / type is made, is that the forcing could increase beyond a point where it becomes saturated at the tropopause level at all wavelengths — what can happen then is that the equilibrium climate sensitivity to the nearly zero forcing from additional GHGs may approach infinity, because in equilibrium the tropopause has to shift upward enough to reach a level where there can be some net LW flux up through it.

Once the ice reaches the equator, the equilibrium climate is significantly colder than what would initiate melting at the equator, but if CO2 from geologic emissions build up (they would, but very slowly — geochemical processes provide a negative feedback by changing atmospheric CO2 in response to climate changes, but this is generally very slow, and thus can not prevent faster changes from faster external forcings) enough, it can initiate melting — what happens then is a runaway in the opposite direction (until the ice is completely gone — the extreme warmth and CO2 amount at that point, combined with left - over glacial debris available for chemical weathering, will draw CO2 out of the atmosphere, possibly allowing some ice to return).

(Actually, I believe what you are refering to, is as your link pointed out, the IPCC definition of equilibrium climate sensitivity, and not simple solar radiative equilibrium, as we have been discussing in these last few posts.)

In my earlier posting, I tried to make the distinction that global climate change (all that is changing in the climate system) can be separated into: (1) the global warming component that is driven primarily by the increase in greenhouse gases, and (2) the natural (externally unforced) variability of the climate system consisting of temperature fluctuations about an equilibrium reference point, which therefore do not contribute to the long - term trend.

And so we are like a giant test tube experiment involving the whole plant where chemical reactions at some point will be too far past maintaining equilibrium - perhaps with a large climate related disaster the world will wake up just a little too late to stop unforeseen consequences

Simply put the climate change debate is strictly whether it is changes to the incoming or outgoing energy that is causing a shift in the equilibrium temperature and all evidence points to the fact that it is the changes to the incoming energy that is by far the dominant driver with changes to the outgoing energy from the enhanced greenhouse effect too insignificant to even be detected.

If a glacier can not retreat to a point where equilibrium is established, it is in disequilibrium with the current climate.

The only thing I find noteworthy is that it further reinforces the point that there is no scientific consensus on a best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity, which is entirely in agreement with the IPCC's statement in AR5 WG1 SPM: «No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.»

Their warning is stark: if warming in the region passes 4 °C, or more than 40 % of the forest is destroyed, «we will reach rupture point in the forest - climate equilibrium».

We have heard for years that as we push the climate system toward some new equilibrium point, we can expect «nasty surprises».

AK, Interesting point and analysis, «The «Stadium Wave» hypothesis, per se, is outside the paradigm Gavin is defending, because it fails to acknowledge the fundamental assumption that the «climate» is essentially an «equilibrium system» that only leaves its «equilibrium» when «forced» by some external factor.

Spencer and Braswell freely admit that using their simple model is just the first step in a complicated diagnosis, but also point out that the results from simple models provide insight that should help guide the development of more complex models, and ultimately could help unravel some of the mystery as to why full climate models produce high estimates of the earth's equilibrium climate sensitivity, while estimates based in real - world observations are much lower.

One point to bear in mind is that equilibrium climate sensitivity of any sort is an artificial concept since the ocean - atmosphere system can only approach equilibrium as a limit, never actually reaching it.

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 pointClimate 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 pointclimate analyses, but instead the on - going «effective» climate sensitivity as Gregory et al 2002 already pointclimate sensitivity as Gregory et al 2002 already pointed out.

The recent transient warming (combined with ocean heat uptake and our knowledge of climate forcings) points towards a «moderate» value for the equilibrium sensitivity, and this is consistent with what we know from other analyses.

In cases where the thinning is substantial along the entire length of the glacier, even in the accumulation zone than no point of equilibrium can be achieved with present climate and the glacier is unlikely to survive.

So we can see that despite this huge step change in the climate system inputs the output settled back to the same equilibrium point.

Here is a key point made by R&F (I removed the reference numbers for clarify of reading here — see the original paper for the links to the relevant peer - reviewed literature; GHG = greenhouse gases, CEWGA = committed equilibrium warming from greenhouse gases and aerosols, Wm2 = watts per metre squared, DAI = dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system):

Worst of all, a 4 C world may not be a stable climate state — climate feedbacks at 4 C may make a higher equilibrium point inevitable.

The whole point of climate is it's not in equilibrium and it isn't supposed to be.

In short the PETM seems to contradict the AGW point of equilibrium climate sensitivity based on a new level of forcing through CO2 increase..