Sentences with phrase «higher equilibrium temperature»

Thus, no «net energy gain» and no» higher equilibrium temperature».

I am not arguing against what you say, just trying to understand the mechanism... I have always known an object cools more slowly and reaches a higher equilibrium temperature in a warm surroundings than a cold one, but had considered that an effect of gradient, not as you say a result of energy input from the colder surroundings.

Usually when you add energy to a surface it moves to a new higher equilibrium temperature, not a lower equilibrium temperature.

Greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere in very small increments relatively — this reduces the heat loss from oceans that are routinely warmer than the new higher equilibrium temperature.

However it does still mean that temperatures rise — and at any given level of CO2 forcing this effect will mean a higher equilibrium temperature.

Actually to reach a new, higher equilibrium temperature, the Earth surface (including oceans) must warm and thus the radiative budget MUST be unbalanced, less radiation must be emitted in space compared to the (unchanged) incoming solar radiation.

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).

This leads to a higher equilibrium temperature, but balance is reestablished again in a sense that time averages of energy in - and - out are equal for each volume element, given some fixed elevation of greenhouse gas concentration.

As far as I know, if the only physical mechanism under consideration is the radiative cooling of the planet's surface (which was heated by shortwave solar radiation and reradiated at longer wavelengths in the infrared) via radiative transport, additional gas of any kind can only result in a higher equilibrium temperature.

Not exact matches

Because the two temperatures (skin and air) seek equilibrium, the higher difference between air and skin make women feel colder.

[1] CO2 absorbs IR, is the main GHG, human emissions are increasing its concentration in the atmosphere, raising temperatures globally; the second GHG, water vapor, exists in equilibrium with water / ice, would precipitate out if not for the CO2, so acts as a feedback; since the oceans cover so much of the planet, water is a large positive feedback; melting snow and ice as the atmosphere warms decreases albedo, another positive feedback, biased toward the poles, which gives larger polar warming than the global average; decreasing the temperature gradient from the equator to the poles is reducing the driving forces for the jetstream; the jetstream's meanders are increasing in amplitude and slowing, just like the lower Missippi River where its driving gradient decreases; the larger slower meanders increase the amplitude and duration of blocking highs, increasing drought and extreme temperatures — and 30,000 + Europeans and 5,000 plus Russians die, and the US corn crop, Russian wheat crop, and Aussie wildland fire protection fails — or extreme rainfall floods the US, France, Pakistan, Thailand (driving up prices for disk drives — hows that for unexpected adverse impacts from AGW?)

Consider a box willed with gas, under two conditions: (1) the first box is in equilibrium, at high temperature, and thus has a high energy content; (2) the second box has low energy content, but is out of equilibrium: it is stirred by turbulent convection, produced by heating from below and cooling from above.

The vapor pressure in equilibrium with supercooled droplets (liquid H2O) is higher than that in equilibrium with solid H2O at the same temperature, so liquid droplets will evaporate to feed deposition on an effective ice nucleus.

Aslo, regarding climate sensitivity a very key thing to remember, especially if sensitivity turns out to be on the high side, is that the «final» equilibrium temperature (Alexi's concerns about there being such a thing aside) calculated from climate sensitivity does not take into account carbon cycle feedbacks OR ice sheet changes.

However, equilibrium is always achieved at a higher overall temperature.

(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.)

Given those two factors and ignoring future emissions that will drive the temperature even higher, we are already over +2 C warming once we stop emitting short - lived coal smoke and other pollutants into the air and we give the Earth time to reach temperature equilibrium.

Jim, Agreed, and depending on what one thinks will happen with methane and what one thinks the time to equilibrium might be — the answer could actually higher or lower than the ultimate equilibrium temperature.

Fred, are you distinguishing the stratosphere temperature — during the period of nonequilibrium from — during the new equilibrium period after CO2 stops increasing and the warming has leveled off at a higher temperature?

If the Earth absorbs more energy, its temperature rises, which causes it to radiate more energy back into space (Stefan - Boltzmann law) until it reaches equilibrium at a higher temperature.

As things warm up, outflow rises (more longwave, more convection) until equilibrium is reached at a higher temperature.

The alternative formula, that a change in temperature causes a change in dynamic equilibrium between CO2 release and CO2 absorption is far more normal in nature: higher temperatures lead to a new equilibrium at a higher CO2 level.

In your many lines — thankyou — i found the key argument how you can be convinced that the temperature only creates variation for a very short time: YOu write: «The net result is that a new equilibrium (at a higher CO2 level) is reached in relative short time, between a few months (seasons) to a few years (sustained higher average temperature level).»

Thus while CO2 and temperature are thightly coupled and CO2 levels in the atmosphere follow the seasonal cooling within a month, the other factor, the emissions independently increases the amounts, pushing the setpoint of the equilibrium to higher levels.

The high emissivity of CO2 in the IR actually contributes to our radiative equilibrium temperature being another 20K or more lower than that but I'll wait until somebody is interested in implementing the computations in CoSy or puts a table, not a graph, of an actual measured mean spectrum in my lap.

«the tendency to a radiative equilibrium means that the emitter with the higher surface temperature will loose energy due to a negative net radiation balance until this net radiation balance becomes zero.»

It clearly states that (a) emission of energy by radiation is accompanied with cooling of the surface (if no compensating changes prevent it), and (b) the tendency to a radiative equilibrium means that the emitter with the higher surface temperature will loose energy due to a negative net radiation balance until this net radiation balance becomes zero.

As long as the AAL is a closed loop and kept independent of the Solar Diabatic Loop (SDL) then system equilibrium is maintained however high the surface temperature might rise.

They cool to form the new local thermodynamic equilibrium at the new higher temperature.

Therefore at low temperatures and high pressures as is the case in the low atmosphere, the equilibrium between the different quantum states (the proportions must stay constant) is mainly ruled by collisions.

Anyway, I have encountered this question out in the wilds, and my response was that the CO2 container would have the lower equilibrium temperature, the N2 container the higher because the CO2 is a good LW emitter and the N2 is not, consistent with, «So if you assume that two contained «bubbles» of gas with a given temperature were placed in space the N2 would cool much more slowly.»

willb, further, heat plus radiation is net from the ocean, but what CO2 affects is the downward IR, which offsets part of that net, and results in a higher equilibrium ocean temperature.

Reducing CO2 emissions to zero as rapidly as possible is the only thing we KNOW that we can do; and only after that will the planet eventually be able to arrive at some new, higher, equilibrium temperature and stable climate — which climate, hopefully, will still be a livable one.

By definition that can only happen if the temperature of the hohlraum increases to a higher equilibrium value.

Of all the linear temperature profiles, find entropy maximization requires the equilibrium temperature of Fig. 1 to decrease with increasing height i.e. it is non-isothermal, T1b is required to be higher than T1t by proper maximization of entropy.

Thus, the temperature of the gas at the bottom is higher than the gas at the top in the presence of gravity, and indeed this is a stable arrangement in thermodynamic equilibrium.

It is just a delaying effect whereby the surface temperature increases until the increase in surface / space temperature differential in turn increases the rate of radiation to space and a new but higher temperature equilibrium is reached.

No heat flows in Fig. 1 in equilibrium yet temperature decreases with increasing height according to all 3 ref.s I've cited w / the specific ref.s: «Please be specific» (a quote from my high school English teacher).

There is a widespread view that a 4 degrees C future is incompatible with an organised global community, is likely to be beyond «adaptation,» is devastating to the majority of ecosystems, and has a high probability of not being stable (i.e., 4 degrees C would be an interim temperature on the way to a much higher equilibrium level).

«MDR says: January 24, 2012 at 1:14 pm Thus, the temperature of the gas at the bottom is higher than the gas at the top in the presence of gravity, and indeed this is a stable arrangement in thermodynamic equilibrium.»

It's just fundamental physics that this large radiative forcing must result in global warming until the Earth reaches a new energy equilibrium at a higher temperature.

The temperature of the water will go up until those rates are matched again, but now the equilibrium temperature will be higher.

Note the 2 oldest reconstructions are also the highest, so I'm sticking to my estimate of a net TSI change between 1910 and 1945 of about 0.3 W / m2, which calculates to an equilibrium temperature rise of about 0.05 C.

Thus going back to 1846 and John Tyndall, anyone with statistical thermodynamics» knowledge knows that thermalisation of IR from a higher temperature source can not occur in the gas phase at local thermodynamic equilibrium.

The only comment I agree with is that the shell does not transfer «heat» to the sphere (by definition of heat transfer), but it does cause the sphere to heat up due to the transfer of back radiation energy (you can have energy transfer both ways, but heat transfer only refers to NET energy transfer), and this requires a higher sphere equilibrium temperature for a given energy net transfer for net energy balance.

Pekka, I don't think you are disputing that in an adiabatic convective profile, the temperature at higher altitudes is colder, so the higher molecules are slower, and are continually moving up and down without losing or gaining diabatic energy but with their temperature changing, so I think this argument is about whether the convective profile is an equilibrium profile or not.

The twin consequences of this are a) the hotter body cools more slowly; and b) if the hotter body was at a dynamical equilibrium temperature that was maintained relative to the colder body by some constant input of heat, interpolating the absorber layer will force its temperature higher so that it can maintain the same rate of energy loss and remain in dynamical equilibrium.

The temperature rise at equilibrium (known, unsurprisingly, as the «equilibrium» climate sensitivity) is higher than the transient climate sensitivity (how much higher is uncertain).

This apparent downward heat transfer is really just establishing a new state of thermodynamic equilibrium with a higher mean temperature due to the new energy arriving when the Sun shines.

The high thermal inertia of the oceans means there is a slow climb in temperature to the new equilibrium point.