The phrase
"equilibrium climate" refers to the stable and balanced state of Earth's climate system over a long period of time. It represents a point where the amount of energy entering (from the sun) and leaving (reflected back to space) the Earth system is in balance. In this state, the average global temperature remains fairly constant, without major fluctuations. It helps scientists understand what the future climate might be like if factors like greenhouse gas concentrations stabilize, allowing the planet to reach a stable and predictable state.
Full definition
Our calculated global warming as a function of CO2 amount is based
on equilibrium climate sensitivity 3 °C for doubled CO2.
So we're still back to the body of reliable research being consistent with 2 to 4.5
°C equilibrium climate sensitivity.
Since 1990, the wide range in model - based estimates of
equilibrium climate warming has been attributed to disparate cloud responses to warming.
The forcing and feedback (including the vertical temperature profile feedback) will be different in complimentary ways to result in the same magnitude of shift
in equilibrium climate.
I think this is most clearly seen in Fig. 2, which compares the zonal temperature change with various ECS values
[equilibrium climate sensitivity].
So it seems to me that maybe a good proposal would be to suggest that we set up a formal method to
determine equilibrium climate sensitivity from (what must be) paleo - climate research and model results that include ice sheet and other long - term effects of a forcing.
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.
Writing at the Cato Institute, Michaels wrote that the paper
found equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) would be roughly half that found by mainstream scientific sources like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
A proposition of this type is a premise to the IPCC's argument for the possibility of a catastrophically
high equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) and this argument must be regarded as unproved in view of the falsity of this premise.
captdallas2 @ 130 — To become more impressed by the estimate of about 3 K for
Charney equilibrium climate sensitivity, read papers by Annan & Hargreaves.
Annan
said equilibrium climate sensitivity is unlikely to be higher than 4.5 °C — there are few if any mainstream climate scientists who would disagree with this.
Beyond equilibrium climate sensitivity -LSB-...] Newer metrics relating global warming directly to the total emitted CO2 show that in order to keep warming to within 2 °C, future CO2 emissions have to remain strongly limited, irrespective of climate sensitivity being at the high or low end.»
Nonetheless, there is a tendency for
similar equilibrium climate sensitivity ECS, especially using a Charney ECS defined as equilibrium global time average surface temperature change per unit tropopause - level forcing with stratospheric adjustment, for different types of forcings (CO2, CH4, solar) if the forcings are not too idiosyncratic.
The manuscript uses a simple energy budget equation (as employed e.g. by Gregory et al 2004, 2008, Otto et al 2013) to test the consistency between three recent «assessments» of radiative forcing and climate sensitivity (not
really equilibrium climate sensitivity in the case of observational studies).
Phrases with «equilibrium climate»