Sentences with phrase «equilibrium response»

Also, it diagnoses only one measure of climate change (equilibrium response of global mean surface temperature).

Harris et al. (2006) obtain PDFs by boosting a 17 - member perturbed physics ensemble of the UKMO - HadCM3 model using scaled equilibrium responses from a larger ensemble of simulations.

The typical equilibrium response times of the climate system's various components range from a single day to millenia.

It's also possible that a lower TCR would simply indicate a longer equilibrium response time.

The values for climate sensitivity and equilibrium response appear to contradict values determined from a variety of other lines of evidence.

When graphed over the logarithm of time (where the exponential decay to equilibrium looks like an S curve), T (0)'s approach to equilibrium may be approximated by two linear segments (after year 0.5 or 1), the first going to about 76 % of equilibrium response around year 70, and the second getting to near 99 % sometime around 4000 years (graphically estimated).

The key is that this is an equilibrium response.

This is a very important number, and probably the most relevant number as we progress into the 21st century, but paleoclimate studies are primarily focused on the equilibrium response (i.e., after the oceans have warmed up sufficiently to allow the top of atmosphere radiative budget to be balanced).

These transient models show that not enough time has elapsed for the equilibrium response to be achieved.

If it takes 100 plus years to double the concentration of CO2, and if the equilibrium response is a 2C increase (Pierrehumbert, «Principles of Planetary Climate», p 623), and if the increased CO2 produces increased vegetation and crop growth, then the present rate of development of non-fossil fuel power and fuel generation is more appropriate than an Apollo type project or attempt to get rid of all fossil fuel use by 2050 starting now as fast as can be done.

Similarly, correlating T against CO2 and expecting the coefficient to give the equilibrium response is just foolish.

[Response: no, you are confusing a transient response with an equilibrium response (which is larger).

If one assumes the circulation patterns don't change in such a way as to affect this (and some other things)-- I'm not sure what form the response function was in; I'll have to go back and look at the comments above — but if it was given as a function over time f (t) as a fraction of the equilibrium response f (t) = T (t) / Teq for a constant forcing switched on at t = 0, then (given various simplifying assumptions) one could use linear superposition --

Now, should the reduced concentration persist, more energy will continue to accumulate in the system until a new, higher equilibrium temperature is reached (the equilibrium response).

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.

We know that there were two other factors at play, increasing CO2 and higher insolation, both of which also change the energy balance positively and therefore increase the equilibrium response to the changes in the environment.

In a trivial case, and if you really squint a lot, your argument has some resemblance to the equilibrium response.

In a sense, the higher climate sensitivity associated with the slow feedbacks are transient, but the transient response and equilibrium response both refer to the fast feedbacks, not the slow feedbacks.

Underlying this entire context is the fact that we have not yet seen the equilibrium response or Earth system response from 350 to 400 ppm of CO2 — since the oceans are warming and ice is melting and the seas rising.

«Climate Model Simulations of the Equilibrium Response to Increased Carbon Dioxide.»

«Their study shows that the time - dependent response of zonal mean surface temperature differs significantly from its equilibrium response particularly in those latitude belts, where the fraction of ocean - covered area is relatively large.

The observed climate is just the equilibrium response to such variations with the positions of the air circulation systems and the speed of the hydrological cycle always adjusting to bring energy differentials between all the many ocean and atmosphere layers back towards equilibrium (Wilde's Law?).

This is within the large range advocated by the IPCC, though somewhat higher from the sensitivity I find, especially if you're talking about the response after a few decades as opposed to the equilibrium response.

You are not telling us, I hope, that 10 — 20 years after the transient response the climate is near to the equilibrium response.