Sentences with phrase «equilibrium responses from»

Furthermore, you also need to distinguish the equilibrium response from the response at any point in time when following a particular scenario.

Not exact matches

Does it mean that transient climate response (as expressed by ice sheet or see - ice melting among other events) to GHGs is not so far from equilibrium climate sensitivity?

[Response: Check out the transient vs. equilibrium climate discussion in our National Research Council report, «Climate Stabilization Targets» (free from the NAS web site.

(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).

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.).)

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).

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.

Adding CO2 means that the Earth becomes even less «in thermal equilibrium with itself», becomes less efficient at discarding the energy received from the sun, and in response, raises its temperatures.

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.

«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.

Furthermore, Gillett et al.'s central estimate of the transient response, 1.3 °C, very closely matches the 1.2 °C and 1.5 °C alternative IPCC estimates of warming per 1,000 GtC after 1,000 y from the end of emissions, assuming a midrange equilibrium climate sensitivity of 3 °C to the doubling of preindustrial carbon levels (6).

And the gut feeling by IPCC is everything from a walk in the park to catastrophe: «The equilibrium climate sensitivity quantifies the response of the climate system to constant radiative forcing on multi - century time scales.

However special you think the climate is, when you have two species of molecule that are distinguishable from each other, but follow the same laws while traversing the system, AND are in equilibrium with each other throughout the system, it is a denomstratable fact that the response of each to an impulse will be the same.

My own theory, looking at the graph Hans posted, is that the closing of Panama took roughly 2 Myr (from 3 Myr to 1 Myr) to reach it's equilibrium climate response.

[far from equilibrium systems] are typically nonlinear: that is, their response to perturbation is often not proportional to the magnitude of the perturbation, as for systems near equilibrium.

The response time of the troposphere is relatively short, from days to weeks, whereas the stratosphere reaches equilibrium on a time scale of typically a few months.

In discussions here, some people don't seem to understand how sensitivity is defined; they mix up equilibrium sensitivity with transient response sensitivity, or try to read equilibrium sensitivity from a temperature trend.

With the Greenland ice sheet melting like butter now and not 100 years from now as IPCC originally expected, the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity measure and its inherent assumption that ice sheet and tundra response will be slow, seems to be shaping up as too conservative.

4) If WV stayed the same on a planet entirely covered by land and all else being equal the equilibrium temperature of that planet would be much less than that of Earth because the faster response time in warming up from solar energy would be matched by an equally fast loss of energy at night and in winter.

The statement which was made regarding atmospheric cooling, is from NASA, and not Columbia University: «To quantify climate change, researchers need to know the Transient Climate Response (TCR) and Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) of Earth.

Transient climate response (TCR) and equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) were calculated by the modelling groups (using atmosphere models coupled to slab ocean for equilibrium climate sensitivity), except those in italics, which were calculated from simulations in the MMD at PCMDI.

The Planck response of 1.2 K for GCMs comes from one - dimensional radiative convective equilibrium models (1DRCM) that assume the fixed lapse rate of 6.5 K / km (FLRA) and use the mathematical method of Cess (1976), equation (3).

The transient response is likely to be different from an equilibrium response as climate warms.

Recently there have been some studies and comments by a few climate scientists that based on the slowed global surface warming over the past decade, estimates of the Earth's overall equilibrium climate sensitivity (the total amount of global surface warming in response to the increased greenhouse effect from a doubling of atmospheric CO2, including amplifying and dampening feedbacks) may be a bit too high.

If our use of the IPCC's own predictions of future CO2 growth on the A2 scenario, and its own equation for converting those predictions to equilibrium temperature, leads to predictions of temperature response that are different from those of the IPCC, then it may be that we are doing the sums wrong, in which case a true scientist would point out what we are doing wrong.

They assert that their results imply that estimates of the transient climate response (TCR) and equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) derived from recent observations are biased low.

Equation -LCB- 6.1 -RCB- is defined for the transition of the surface - troposphere system from one equilibrium state to another in response to an externally imposed radiative perturbation.

We would expect the Gregory - ECS to be closer to the Transient Climate Response estimates since it is not calculated from equilibrium assumptions, and indeed it is closer to TCR.

It should be remembered that this is a dynamic response where T represents a temporary deviation from the temperature that would be at equilibrium with the instantaneous ocean pCO2 level.

From AR5: «The resulting equilibrium temperature response to a doubling of CO2 on millennial time scales or Earth system sensitivity is less well constrained but likely to be larger than ECS...» See also ``... medium confidence that Earth - system sensitivity may be up to two times the model equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS).»