Sentences with phrase «equilibrium warming does»

Not exact matches

Does the pattern of change (warming raises the equilibrium temperature, cooling decreases it), indicate a negative feedback on sea level change (e.g. as land ice melts it requires a little warmer temperature to continue to melt further land ice... and vice versa??).

So, if you have two identical glass greenhouses with thermally isolated mercury thermometers at equilibrium in the sunlight [One with Air at Press =P, and the 2nd w / CO2 at Press =P], and you close the blinds — you will see the thermometer in the CO2 greenhouse retain its temperature longer — not because of any «global warming» type effect, but simply because Air conducts heat to the walls of the greenhouse better than Air does.

What the CO2 (both «cold, hot and warm CO2 ′) and other gasses do is to make the atmosphere more optically thick to thermal IR radiation emitted (mainly) from the Earth's surface [note2] which has consequences for the equilibrium temperature profile of the atmosphere.

So, if you have two identical glass greenhouses with thermally isolated mercury thermometers at equilibrium in the sunlight [One with Air at Press =P, and the 2nd w / CO2 at Press =P], and you close the blinds — you will see the thermometer in the CO2 greenhouse retain its temperature longer — not because of any «global warming» type effect, but simply because Air conducts heat to the walls of the greenhouse better than CO2 does.

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.

[Response: Tropical surface waters remain in pretty close equilibrium with the atmosphere, because they don't mix with deeper waters, because they're warm and buoyant.

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?

Also don't understand why «slowing of cooling» is equated to warming, especially on a rotating planet that doesn't have time to reach equilibrium.

In my earlier posting, I tried to make the distinction that global climate change (all that is changing in the climate system) can be separated into: (1) the global warming component that is driven primarily by the increase in greenhouse gases, and (2) the natural (externally unforced) variability of the climate system consisting of temperature fluctuations about an equilibrium reference point, which therefore do not contribute to the long - term trend.

I don't think the uneven warming can continue at this rate, because the atmospheric flow probably limits the temperature gradients that can develop, but for sure the transient climate is an unnatural state and far from the more even warming that would reflect the equilibrium state.

The planet reaches an essential equilibrium during these periods in that it reaches a certain temperature range for 10,000 or 20,000 years and does not continue the warming it did to rise out of the glacial period.

Why doesn't ozzio see that the ground is net warmed by solar radiation and net cooled by thermal radiation and there is an equilibrium when you account for other fluxes too (as in the K&T budget)?

If you have warming, you don't have equilibrium.

So are you also saying that co2 has a limited effect on changing The equilibrium from one climate state to another or do you argue for something stronger, which would mean that you aren't a lukewarmer a all but a rather warmer version?

So you don't think the oceans were in equilibrium at that time but were, at depth, still warming up?

Radiative Transfer Physics does not depend entirely on the simple absorbtivity of CO2, which by the way is effectively permanent in air when added by burning fossil fuels, compared to water which saturates and precipitates out depending on climate conditions, such as warming due the GHE, as a marginal shift in the dynamic equilibrium through feedbacks.

It DOES N'T take any net CO2 outgassing from the oceans in the case that the atmospheric CO2 growth is caused to a significant degree by warming climatic factors — there's MORE than enough human input to achieve the equilibrium between ocean and atmosphere.

It sloshes back and forth as one would expect on a planet with vast oceans and atmosphere that are never in equilibrium, but does not warm as some claimed it would with slowly increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide.

You began with «My argument was that the smaller you made the transient / equilibrium ratio then the higher the ratio of equilibrium / transient warming would be in the future» which I didn't understand and so grasped at the nearest straw that I did understand.

So the existing pressure regime permits changes in the rate of energy flow independently of temperature such that the warmer skin does not change the equilibrium temperature of the ocean bulk.

Howard, With regards comparison to LGM climate to inform understanding of future WMGHG warming, this is usually done through equilibrium rather than transient experiments.

However, just because a warmer atmosphere CAN hold more water vapor — where it is in equilibrium with liquid water — doesn't mean that it DOES hold more water where there is no reason to assume that equilibrium exiDOES hold more water where there is no reason to assume that equilibrium exists.

I didn't mention the obvious fact that you stated, that the heating will cease, when the upper atmosphere warms enough to restore the equilibrium between radiation leaving the earth and arriving from the sun.

Another thing we don't see skeptics taking on is the energy imbalance being positive (ocean heat content measurements show this) which indicates that we are below the equilibrium temperature even after all this warming.

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.

This is the frequently cited extra forcing estimated at the top of the atmosphere (TOA), and this is where some of the assumptions made above don't quite hold (the picture is correct for a planet in equilibrium, but during a transition the planet is no longer in an equilibrium) and extra energy is taken up by warming of the oceans and surface.

Of course, nothing happens from there; but your premise was to show that the people who say a cold object can not warm a warm object are somehow wrong — your example shows that two equally cold objects are in equilibrium and does not contradict those people at all.

The problem now is that the earth is no longer in thermal equilibrium, so even if the earth's surface did only warm up by 0.589 C initially, it is going to keep warming up until it achieves thermal equilibrium.

This does not violate the second law of thermodynamics because the Hadley cells were in equilibrium before global warming, so what matters is not whether the temperate zones are colder than the tropics but whether the pre-existing equilibrium is shifted by additional warming of the temperate zones.

OK, given uncertainty about the causes of the LIA I can accept, given the causes have disappeared, the planet returns to previous equilibrium (btw, can you ask Bob Tisdale why it gets warmer after each El Nino and temperature doesn't get back to a equilibrium?).

But, it can warm the air close to the ground, if the air is cooler, and does do that if that very energy just bounces around locally in the air maintaining equilibrium and equipartition, and this is what normally happens (really it is thermalization and re-emission from the GHGs), in your room, on your patio, in a field, on the ocean, its just it can never raise the temperature greater than the local surface itself is.