Sentences with phrase «equilibrium response of»

The heat capacity of the oceans is recognized as a factor of enormous importance in delaying the equilibrium response of climate to a CO2 - mediated forcing.

The equilibrium response of the control run (1950 atmospheric composition, CO2 approx. 310 ppm) and runs with successive CO2 doublings and halvings reveals that snowball Earth instability occurs just beyond three CO2 halvings.

Quantifying the equilibrium response of global temperatures to an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations is one of the cornerstones of climate research.

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

Actually, we're using the term climate sensitivity in the same sense, the equilibrium response of mean temp to the surface radiative forcing associated with CO2 doubling.

Stouffer, R.J., and S. Manabe, 2003: Equilibrium response of thermohaline circulation to large changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

Not exact matches

In terms of equilibrium, this has more to do with the child's internal response.

The CCEA analyzed the 752 responses — which represent about one quarter of the Diaper Bank's recipients — according to the Regional Economic Model Inc.'s dynamic equilibrium model.

When the child is a little older, after about three months of age, therapy also addresses head control with equilibrium reactions (the natural response to trying to maintain your balance) and head righting reactions (the natural response to keep your eyes level when you are in different positions).

And is the current large scale ablation seen on these glaciers due to these glaciers coming to some equilibrium with a warmer world due to coming out of the LIA and response times associated with the large masses involved?

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.

However, the equilibrium response would be non-linear so it could be that most of the distance to equlibration was made up in the first couple of centuries.

They conclude, based on study of CMIP5 model output, that equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is not a fixed quantity — as temperatures increase, the response is nonlinear, with a smaller effective ECS in the first decades of the experiments, increasing over time.

Eventually the response is a «give up,» after which, the US Dollar slowly overshoots and then finds a new temporary equilibrium level, and the rest of the world adjusts to it.

The functional response for cat trapping (the offtake with constant effort per unit time) overlaid against the curve of cat productivity suggested a stable equilibrium point at low cat densities (0.07 — 0.13 cats km — 2).

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.

There is still a rather broad range of expected equilibrium global temperature response for CO2 doubling of between 2 to 4.5 degree C.

Elevated trace GHG concentrations contributed an estimated positive forcing of approximately 1.7 — 2.3 W m - 2 (Table S5) in addition to that of CO2 and produced equilibrium climate system responses resulting in widespread significant warming, especially in the high latitudes (Figs. 3 and 4).

Do be mindful that the references he makes present two different forms of sensitivity — equilibrium sensitivity & transcient sensitivity or transcient cllmate response (TCR).

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.

Is that array (Hansen's response function) of percentages meant to indicate the percentage of the equilibrium response since a step-wise change in forcing?

Never mind the continuing increase in atmospheric CO2 — what happened to the 0.5 degree rise due to equilibrium response to recent levels of GHGs.

(change in forcing from bottom to top of a layer = forcing of that layer; equilibrium temperature response of a layer changes the LW and convective fluxes to restore balance).

If your water vapour is out of equilibrium, you will have a forcing that is the systemic response to the water vapour being out of equilibrium.

That doens» t affect the equilibrium increase in the upward flux at TRPP in response, though it may change how much of that is absorbed by the stratosphere (perhaps a reduction due to shielding of water vapor and CO2 wings in the stratosphere by increased tropospheric water vapor (as it would by an increase in clouds, particularly higher clouds)-- PS feedbacks also change the baseline spectral flux in the vicinity of the CO2 band.

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.

Because latent heat release in the course of precipitation must be balanced in the global mean by infrared radiative cooling of the troposphere (over time scales at which the atmosphere is approximately in equilibrium), it is sometimes argued that radiative constraints limit the rate at which precipitation can increase in response to increasing CO2.

(57k) When I state that the equilibrium climatic response must balance imposed RF (and feedbacks that occur), I am referring to a global time average RF and global time average response (in terms of radiative and convective fluxes), on a time scale sufficient to characterize the climatic state (including cycles driven by externally - forced cycles (diurnal, annual) and internal variability.

Instead, he inappropriately fed his Fantasy IPCC predictions of CO2 concentration into equations meant to describe the EQUILIBRIUM model response to different CO2 concentrations.

The disequilibrium referred to comes from the fact that the ocean has a lot of thermal inertia and takes a long time to warm up, whereas the atmosphere has a short response time and quickly comes into equilibrium with any given ocean temperature, corresponding to the current amount of greenhouse gases.

Starting from an old equilbrium, a change in radiative forcing results in a radiative imbalance, which results in energy accumulation or depletion, which causes a temperature response that approahes equilibrium when the remaining imbalance approaches zero — thus the equilibrium climatic response, in the global - time average (for a time period long enough to characterize the climatic state, including externally imposed cycles (day, year) and internal variability), causes an opposite change in radiative fluxes (via Planck function)(plus convective fluxes, etc, where they occur) equal in magnitude to the sum of the (externally) imposed forcing plus any «forcings» caused by non-Planck feedbacks (in particular, climate - dependent changes in optical properties, + etc.).)

Refering to bands where optical thickness is constant over the interval of each band, if the atmospheric LW absorption is limited to some band (that doesn't cover all LW radiation), than increases in OLR in response to surface warming will occur outside that band, so OLR will drop within the band — there will still be some portion of stratospheric or near - TOA cooling that will be transient, but some will remain at full equilibrium.

The equilibrium response to an addition of RF at a level is an increase in net upward flux consisting of LW radiation (the Planck response, PR) plus a convective flux response CR; CR is approximately zero at and above the tropopause in the global time average.

My conjecture — and yes, I realize that it is only a conjecture — is that such a variable may exhibit excursions, in response to the delta forcing, that overshoot its ultimate equilibrium values, as a result of the responses and feedbacks mentioned above.

It might help Peter Huybers and his collegues if we understood more about the temperature response of the albedo of the calcite belt, and other bioogically variable components of radiative equilibrium that impact SST in both the southern ocean and the arctic seas

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).

And we know that adding the same greenhouse agents back will (absent hysteresis among equilibria — which should be avoidable if we limit ourselves to considering only the Planck response) warm the climate back up to a surface temperature of 288 K.

So, an equilibrium response is a convenient fiction which enables the science but is not a goal of policy makers and so can not exist in the real world.

part of the utility is that Charney sensitivity, using only relatively rapid feedbacks, describes the climate response to an externally imposed forcing change on a particular timescale related to the heat capacity of the system (if the feedbacks were sufficiniently rapid and the heat capacity independent of time scale (it's not largely because of oceanic circulation), an imbalance would exponentially decay on the time scale of heat capacity * Charney equilibrium climate sensitivity.

Changes in temperature cause changes in emission of radiation, so that as the temperature changes in response to an energy flow imbalance, the imbalance tends to decay toward zero as equilibrium is approached.

Note that «equilibrium» in this thread — up through response 162 — was in terms of climate sensitivity, answering the question about where the «extra heat» comes from.

You state in the response to # 10, ``... There is no surprise that the CO2 in the atmosphere winds up partially in the oceans, nor that the amount of CO2 going into or coming out of the oceans varies in time and space — that's simple equilibrium chemistry between the liquid (that is, dissolved) and gaseous phases...» Are the buffers a part of simple equilibrium chemistry, and where can I go to read up on this and how it pertains to the Models.

This Nature Climate Change paper concluded, based purely on simulations by the GISS - E2 - R climate model, that estimates of the transient climate response (TCR) and equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) based on observations over the historical period (~ 1850 to recent times) were biased low.

Assume a equilibrium climate sensitivity for doubling CO2 of 3 degrees, and a transient climate response of 2 degrees.

The equilibrium climate sensitivity quantifies the response of the climate system to constant radiative forcing on multi-century time scales.

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.

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

The latest modelling experiments take this into account, but it is easier to understand causes and effects in an equilibrium - response experiment.The first thing that happens when CO2 is doubled is that less energy in the form of radiation escapes to space.

If the rather quick response of CO2 rise / year just 5 - 9 months after temperature changes reflects equilibrium with the oceans, then we are only in physical contact with the upper meters of the ocean.

There may be temporary imbalances, but they must average out over time.In an «equilibrium - response» experiment, scientists begin by setting up a climate model with concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) at their present real - world levels.