Sentences with phrase «equilibrium models do»

The «radiation only» equilibrium models do not address the other issue that the layers of the surface and atmosphere can warm at different rates because they have a different mix of cooling mechanisms.

Not exact matches

The «temporary - worker model» the United States uses to staff its labs «is completely out of equilibrium, [because] the country doesn't have the absorptive capacity» to provide career employment — rather than just temporary jobs — to all of the young scientists that the system produces, Gerbi continues.

He recounts what he sees as the differences between evolutionary gradualism and punctuated equilibria, though not in any depth; nor does he mention the adaptationist / neutralist controversies, instead assuming that everyone accepts the strict Darwinian model.

Even microeconomic models are bad shape; most of the major hypotheses get rejected when doing general equilibrium tests.

Not only do you («you» as in Victor and not the general you, because I presume there are people who actually model these things and may know the answer) not know how large the equilibrium response would be, but you don't know if the boundary proposed by your argument (cognate to the equilibrium response) had been reached over that period.

IF the energy required by the GCMs to create the rise in GHG induced temperature comes from the outflow to space (per Hank's model in 137, which I thought was pretty reasonable), BUT IF the GCMs are required to have inflow = outflow @TOA (ie equilibrium — per # 142 & the formal publications» descriptions of the GCMs from GISS etc,) THEN WHERE IN (rhetorical) HELL does the energy come from to create GHG Global warming?

I agree that the the samller the effective heat capacity, the more rapidly will the model reach equilibrium, but I do not understand how that lead to conclude «and the closer TCR will be to ECS».

It is possible that effective climate sensitivity increases over time (ignoring, as for equilibrium sensitivity, ice sheet and other slow feedbacks), but there is currently no model - independent reason to think that it does so.

If your model is true, or really accurate, does the transient climate response to increase of CO2 equal the equilibrium climate response?

Do not claim that equilibrium box models are superior to steady state flux analysis.

A non-ideal gas won't affect the fact that equilibrium is isothermal, of course, but don't change models in the middle of a stream.

I'm not a modeller, though I did some economic modelling from 1966 and later directed a computable general equilibrium modelling team and commissioned modelling.

The fact that the estimates based on the instrumental period tend to peak low has probably more to do with the fact that the climate has not been in equilibrium during that entire instrumental period and so therefore converting the sensitivity computed into an equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), which is what is being discussed, requires some guesswork (and, dare I say it — modelling).

Junkink: What you've said is not quite right for while a particular value of the equilibrium climate sensitivity possesses a probability density, under the IPCC's model, it does not possess a probability.

The effects of 2xCO2 can not be measured, as you appear to state *, since we can't know that the equilibrium has been reached because we don't and will never fully understand the earth system (which certainly isn't described fully by the model FG used).

Ian Schumacher (19:35:21): The Greenhouse Earth doesn't absorb more energy than a black body — in these models it is in equilibrium, with no nett absorption at all.

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.

Is this «enough» quantitation, or do you require «more»: The 100 % anthropogenic attribution from climate models is derived from climate models that have an average equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) around 3C.

Another example: The Explorer I satellite was expected to be spin stabilized about its minor axis, but the designers» model for the equilibrium state did not take account of destabilizing torques which arise from dissipation of energy.

As conceived thus far, the computational general equilibrium models designed for economic trade do not adequately incorporate the processes of land - use change.

Romps et al and Laliberte et al, discussed here in recent months, have made signal steps forward by getting away from modeling base on equilibria, even though some of their specific assumptions do depend on equilibria, such as assuming that the Clausius - Clapayron relationship is accurate.

If we hold everything else equal and double the amount of N2 in the atmosphere, because N2 does not participate in the back radiation, the surface equilibrium temperature should remain «unchanged» according to the radiative transfer model.