Sentences with phrase «equilibrium warming per»

Not exact matches

We show elsewhere (8) that a forcing of 1.08 W / m2 yields a warming of 3/4 °C by 2050 in transient climate simulations with a model having equilibrium sensitivity of 3/4 °C per W / m2.

Using the middle of the range of climate sensitivities of 3 oC of warming at equilibrium per doubling of [CO2], a rise of [CO2] from 280 - 310 ppm should give 0.44 oC at equilibrium.

We show elsewhere (8) that a forcing of 1.08 W / m2 yields a warming of 3/4 °C by 2050 in transient climate simulations with a model having equilibrium sensitivity of 3/4 °C per W / m2.

The range in the CMIP simulations wasn't all that narrow in any case (2 to 4.1 ºC at equilibrium I think), and yes, precipitation is more variable (1 to 3 % increase per degree of warming).

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?

If CO2 were increased in a pulse of a few parts per million — the atmosphere warms rapidly and there may be a very temporary imbalance in radiative flux at TOA before equilibrium is restored with a warmer atmosphere.

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).

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?

Over the 160 + year total period the actually observed warming is a bit less than half the theoretical warming at equilibrium per IPCC.

As per my posts above, it is possible for DLR to increase more than evaporation, and so the warming from the DLR beats the cooling from evaporation, leading to a warming whereby the system is moving towards equilibrium by increasing temperature and hence increasing sensible heat flux and emitted longwave radiation.

Here is a key point made by R&F (I removed the reference numbers for clarify of reading here — see the original paper for the links to the relevant peer - reviewed literature; GHG = greenhouse gases, CEWGA = committed equilibrium warming from greenhouse gases and aerosols, Wm2 = watts per metre squared, DAI = dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system):