Sentences with phrase «equilibrium warming on»

While I'm posting (I can see how you guys get into this) I'm also very uncomfortable with your notion of «tacit knowledge:» it certainly seems to be tacit knowledge in the blogosphere that the chances of the climate sensitivity (equilibrium warming on indefinite stabilization at 560ppm CO2, for the non-enthusiasts) being greater than or equal to 6 degrees are too small to be worth worrying about (meaning down at the level of an asteroid strike).

Not exact matches

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?

I can understand that approaching equilibrium takes a long, long time, while TCR gives a better measure of what will happen over the next few decades (and that technology and society may be very different in 200 years time); but on the other hand, I thought nations had agreed to try to limit global warming to less than 2 degrees C overall, and not just to limit it to less than 2 degrees C by 2100.

To properly interpret the Schmittner et al. paper on this point wouldn't we need to know the equilibrium land - ocean warming contrast inherent in the model used?

The diligent practice of yoga on a regular basis promotes profound experiences of the vastness of space within us and around, it helps us recognize the lost body equilibrium, makes us feel the warm fire of digestive organs, and so much more.

She's in warmer climes, at a conference in Santa Barbara on «Non-Nash Equilibria in Zero - Sum Games.»

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??).

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.

The calculations I have seen that might «constrain» the size of this effecct are based on equilibrium conditions, which I think are unlikely to be very accurate when applied to a system in which each surface region warms and cools every day, and which has rainstorms over large regions, and which never achieves equilibrium.

Co2 is not like a big battery and continuously stores more and more heat, its just a matter of equilibrium being reached of a world on average 1.6 - 2C warmer?

Added to this is the reality that the atmosphere returns to equilibrium at least twice every day since in its daily warming and cooling every point on earth goes from absorbing energy in the day to expelling energy at night, passing through equilibrium in the process.

Mark — What are your thoughts about the analysis by Ramanathan and Feng (PNAS, Sept 17,2008: http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0803838105), in which they calculate the committed warming of cumulative emissions since the pre-industrial era as in the region of 2.4 °C (with a confidence interval of 1.4 °C to 4.3 °C), based on calculating the equilibrium temperature if GHG concentrations are held at 2005 levels into the future.

(The actual equilibrium takes on the order of a few thousand years, the mixing time of the oceans, to reach... But that's at constant temperature... So if the oceans warm significantly, then we lock in a new equilibrium, at higher atmospheric CO2 for much longer timescales.)

Equilibrium climate sensitivity describes how much the planet will warm if carbon dioxide levels were to double, and the Earth goes on to cope and stabilize to the new atmosphere.

Re my 441 — competing bands — To clarify, the absorption of each band adds to a warming effect of the surface + troposphere; given those temperatures, there are different equilibrium profiles of the stratosphere (and different radiative heating and cooling rates in the troposphere, etc.) for different amounts of absorption at different wavelengths; the bands with absorption «pull» on the temperature profile toward their equilibria; disequilibrium at individual bands is balanced over the whole spectrum (with zero net LW cooling, or net LW cooling that balances convective and solar heating).

I suppose that for a 3,7 W / m2 forcing, the additional energy of forcing + feedbacks is used for faster processes (melting ice, evaporation, warming of subsurface oceanic layers, etc.) and the new equilibrium is reach on a quite short timescale.

We can now argue about whether the GH warming has reached «equilibrium» over the past 150 years or whether there is still some GH warming «hidden in the pipeline», but IMO that is like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

I infer from this example that global warming has a negligible impact on temperature profile, at least in equilibrium.

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.

But of course the pace of the temperature trend also depends on the global future emissions outlook and on remaining uncertainties surrounding climate sensitivity — or the politically most relevant metric «Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity» (ECS), the amount of warming expected on a decades timescale after doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration.

In particular, the model is based on an ECS distribution defined as a random variable modeling «the equilibrium global average surface warming following a doubling of CO2 concentration.»

Paleontological records indicate that global mean sea level is highly sensitive to temperature (7) and that ice sheets, the most important contributors to large - magnitude sea - level change, can respond to warming on century time scales (8), while models suggest ice sheets require millennia to approach equilibrium (9).

it probably would end up slightly warmer the next day, and very slightly warmer the day after, and so on until it reached a new slightly warmer equilibrium

When I rephrased my question and gave some background to my reason for asking it, you went way outside your area of expertise and turned to stating your opinions (based on you ideological beliefs) about how much your tool says the planet will warm by 2100 (4.4 C you said based on 3.2 C equilibrium climate sensitivity).

Well if you want to go there then yes actually, it probably would end up slightly warmer the next day, and very slightly warmer the day after, and so on until it reached a new slightly warmer equilibrium.

[¶]... Basing our assessment on a combination of several independent lines of evidence, as summarised in Box 10.2 Figures 1 and 2, including observed climate change and the strength of known feedbacks simulated in GCMs, we conclude that the global mean equilibrium warming for doubling CO2, or «equilibrium climate sensitivity», is likely to lie in the range 2 °C to 4.5 °C, with a most likely value of about 3 °C.

''... the world today is on the verge of a level of global warming for which the equilibrium surface air temperature response on the ice sheets will exceed the global mean temperature increase by much more than a factor of two.»

A.) If I wanted to get a rough estimate of the equilibrium warming response to a tripling of the preindustrial atmospheric concentration of CO2eq (so 3 x 280 CO2eq ppm), I would just take my best sensitivity - per - doubling estimate on the bottom bar and multiply it by 1.5?

We need to be careful focussing upon «trends» — it can lead to serious errors of context — and this underlies the entire «global warming» thesis which relies upon computer models with entirely false (i.e. non-natural) notions of an equilibrium starting point and calculations of trend — this conveniently ignores cycles, and it has to because a) there are several non-orbital cycles in motion (8 - 10 yr, 11, 22, 60, 70, 80, 400 and 1000 - 1500) depending on ocean basic, hemisphere and global view — all interacting via «teleconnection» of those ocean basins, some clearly timed by solar cycles, some peaking together; b) because the cycles are not exact, you can not tell in any one decade where you are in the longer cycles.

By the way Kenneth, you were commented on the line «when it warms, glaciers retreat until either a new equilibrium between ablation and accumulation is found or until they disappear.»

If one cools the gas on the bottom and warms the gas at the top (relative to a gas with a DALR), if anything one expects to increase the density at the bottom compared to the top and shift the center of mass of the gas downhill while remaining (quasi-static process) in equilibrium.

Let's say you have both a sun lamp and a heat heat lamp on a container of water at some equilibrium temperature — it is cooling as fast as it warms..

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?

Show me the empirical data, based on real - time physical observations or reproducible experimentation (NOT climate model runs), which support the premise that GH warming requires decades or even centuries to reach «equilibrium».

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.

Our calculated global warming as a function of CO2 amount is based on equilibrium climate sensitivity 3 °C for doubled CO2.

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.

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.

«Results imply that global and regional warming rates depend sensitively on regional ocean processes setting the [ocean heat uptake] pattern, and that equilibrium climate sensitivity can not be reliably estimated from transient observations.»

Yes a photon from a cool object can hit a warm object — just like a raindrop could be thrown on a glacier, although the tendency is for thermal equilibrium.

Another paper, [7] which they also cite, instead derives an equilibrium air — sea surface warming differential from a theoretical model based on an assumed relative humidity height profile, with thermal inertia playing no role.

For instance, separating transient and equilibrium into 50 year periods for simplicity, an 80 % transient on a 0.5 C total warming would cause 0.4 C warming in the first 50 years and 0.1 C in the next 50.

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.

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.

Because the temperature gradient in a planet's troposphere is the state of thermodynamic equilibrium which the Second Law of Thermodynamics says will evolve, the planet's supported surface temperature is autonomously warmer than its mean radiating temperature, so warm in fact on Earth that we need radiating gases (mostly water vapour) to reduce the gradient and thus cool the surface from a mean of about 300K to about 288K, this being confirmed by empirical evidence (as in the study in my book) which confirms with statistical significance that water vapour cools rather than warms, all these facts thus debunking the greenhouse conjecture.

I can understand that approaching equilibrium takes a long, long time, while TCR gives a better measure of what will happen over the next few decades (and that technology and society may be very different in 200 years time); but on the other hand, I thought nations had agreed to try to limit global warming to less than 2 degrees C overall, and not just to limit it to less than 2 degrees C by 2100.

We justify this decision by noting that, on the A2 scenario, by 2100 the transient warming predicted by the IPCC is 3.4 K, while the equilibrium warming generated by the IPCC's own formula based on its central estimate of CO2 concentration growth on the same scenario is not a great deal higher, at 3.86 K. Also, it may or may not be true that any distinction between transient and equilibrium warming actually exists.

It is surely not particularly difficult to understand that the IPCC's temperature predictions, on the A2 scenario, depend first upon its predictions of future (exponential) growth in CO2 concentration, and secondly upon its estimates of the quantum of equilibrium warming to be expected in response to its predicted increase in CO2 concentration.

That is, there is still a fair chance that we can «hold the 2 °C line», if strong mitigation of greenhouse gases is combined with the following three actions: (i) a slow, rather than instant, elimination of aerosol cooling, (ii) a directed effort to first remove warming aerosols like black carbon, and (iii) a concerted and sustained programme, over this century, to draw - down excessive CO2 (geo - and bio-engineering) and simultaneously reduce non-CO2 forcings, such that the final equilibrium temperature rise will be lower than would otherwise be expected on the basis of current concentrations.

As we've discussed previously, there are multiple classes of observational data that could provide some constraints on how warm the planet will get as CO2 increases (either on a multi-decadal timescale (TCR) or for the long term equilibrium (ECS)-RRB-.