Sentences with phrase «equilibrium temperature»

The idea was that if one increases the insulation around an oven then it will reach a higher equilibrium temperature for the same energy input.

Since warmer objects mean more energetic radiation, eventually a new and somewhat higher equilibrium temperature will be established.

It would be much more appropriate to refer to the equilibrium amount of increase in sea level per unit of achieved equilibrium temperature increase.

Hence, we might reasonably conclude that there has been no significant change in estimated effective equilibrium temperature, a very different picture from the result you obtain with your definition.

Another way of answering the question might be «the very long term equilibrium temperature of a planet with X amount of CO2 and H2O in this orbit is X».

As I will now explain, that is important because the combination of expansion and increased height enables the atmosphere to accommodate more GHGs without altering system equilibrium temperature.

What is their approximate equilibrium temperature assuming ambient conditions stay constant?

That is because the surface and the atmosphere are near equilibrium temperature.

Just like anything else, the temperature of the earth approaches that equilibrium temperature closer and closer over time.

If the net effect of more GHGs is actually system cooling then the reverse scenario would apply, still with no change in equilibrium temperature.

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).

«Radiative forcing [RF] can be related through a linear relationship to the global mean equilibrium temperature change at the surface (delta Ts): delta Ts = lambda * RF, where lambda is the climate sensitivity parameter (e.g., Ramaswamy et al., 2001).

The upper atmosphere has a small heat capacity and reaches equilibrium temperature in considerably under a year; this feeds back on the forcing of the trosphere + surface, which are generally convectively coupled with the ocean (strongly with the upper ocean) and take a number of years to reach equilibrium.

The basic facts are that the long - range equilibrium temperature rises with every rise in CO2, that the CO2 will only stop rising when we have a world economy with zero net emissions, and that even a 2 - degree increase in average global temperature is forecast to produce huge changes, so there is a limit to how slowly we can go about the transition to zero emissions.

So, on those grounds, more GHGs could not affect equilibrium temperature because they provoke an equal and opposite system response to any effect they might have on the transfer of energy through the planetary system.

The new Kepler planet candidates represent ~ 40 % of the sample with Rp ~ 1 Rearth and represent ~ 40 % of the low equilibrium temperature (Teq < 300 K) sample.

«Radiative forcing can be related through a linear relationship to the global mean equilibrium temperature change at the surface (ΔTs): ΔTs = λ RF, where λ is the climate sensitivity parameter (e.g., Ramaswamy et al., 2001).»