Sentences with phrase «low equilibrium temperature»

Increasing GES concentration increases the cooling and hence lowers the equilibrium temperature.

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.»

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

Not exact matches

[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.

So naively adding more CO2 will have a cooling effect moving the equilibrium temperature lower.

Actually, I thought about it and having oceanic circulation does allow this behavior (that the surface temperature can decline when forcing is declining even while it is still less than the equilibrium temperature)-- it makes sense because the deep ocean may still be pulling the surface temperature toward a much lower temperature.

then would increase the heat flow atmosphere - > ocean, leading to lower (dynamic) equilibrium temperature in the atmosphere which of course occurs very fast, as the thermal mass of the atmosphere is very low compared to the net energy throughput.

# 192 «For example a strengthening of wind over some oceanic region http://web.science.unsw.edu.au/~matthew/nclimate2106-incl-SI.pdf then would increase the heat flow atmosphere - > ocean, leading to lower (dynamic) equilibrium temperature in the atmosphere which of course occurs very fast, as the thermal mass of the atmosphere is very low compared to the net energy throughput.»

Hegerl et al (2006) for example used comparisons during the pre-industrial of EBM simulations and proxy temperature reconstructions based entirely or partially on tree - ring data to estimate the equilibrium 2xCO2 climate sensitivity, arguing for a substantially lower 5 % -95 % range of 1.5 — 6.2 C than found in several previous studies.

For example, if the Earth got cold enough, the encroachment of snow and ice toward low latitudes (where they have more sunlight to reflect per unit area), depending on the meridional temperature gradient, could become a runaway feedback — any little forcing that causes some cooling will cause an expansion of snow and ice toward lower latitudes sufficient to cause so much cooling that the process never reaches a new equilibrium — until the snow and ice reach the equator from both sides, at which point there is no more area for snow and ice to expand into.

How about this brutally simplified calculation for a lower bound of equilibrium temperature sensitivity: — there seems to be a consensus that transient t.s. < equilibrium t.s. — today, the trend line is a + 1 C (see Columbia graph)-- CO2 is at 410, which is 1.46 * 280 — rise is logarithmic, log (base2) of 1.46 = 0.55 — 1/0.55 = 1.8 — therefore, a lower bound for ETS is 1.8 C

(PS a skin temperature can be lower than the brightness temperature of the OLR because a very thin layer at the top of the atmosphere will absorb a tiny fraction of OLR, thus barely affecting OLR, but must in equilibrium emit that same amount of energy both upwards and downwards; if it were as warm as the brightness temperature of the OLR then it would emit twice what it absorbs and thus cool.

Depending on meridional heat transport, when freezing temperatures reach deep enough towards low - latitudes, the ice - albedo feedback can become so effective that climate sensitivity becomes infinite and even negative (implying unstable equilibrium for any «ice - line» (latitude marking the edge of ice) between the equator and some other latitude).

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.

As more optical thickness is added to a «new» band, it will gain greater control over the temperature profile, but eventually, the equilibrium for that band will shift towards a cold enough upper atmosphere and warm enough lower atmosphere and surface, such that farther increases will cool the upper atmosphere or just that portion near TOA while warming the lower atmosphere and surface — until the optical thickness is so large (relative to other bands) that the band loses influence (except at TOA) and has little farther effect (except at TOA).

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.

You can not raise the temperature of a uniformly heated body at equilibrium exposed to a source of radiant heat in a vacuum by surrounding it with gas of any sort, that is initially the same or a lower temperature than the body.

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.

I get the equilibrium temperature after about 4000 years (on a multi-layer ocean) and cyclical variations in temperature are 6K / 50 years with a fairly low variation of the overall sensitivity.

In most planetary atmospheres, radiative equilibrium temperatures can not be sustained in the lower regions of the atmosphere..

If (a) the surfaces of both objects behave like a black body, (b) the surface temperature of each body is everywhere the same, and (c) the internal energy sources are equal (i.e., their rates - of - internal - energy - generation are the same), at radiation - rate - equilibrium the surface temperature of the cube will be lower than the surface temperature of the sphere by the ratio of the fourth root of 1.2407 or 1.0554.

Eventually the system will come back to thermal equilibrium at a much lower temperature.

Has it ever occured to you that this equilibrium moves quicker when the temperatures are lower?

I agree that reduction in snow or ice cover resulting from warming constitutes a likely slow positive feedback, but its magnitude may be quite small, at least for the modest changes in surface temperature that can be expected to arise if sensitivity is in fact fairly low, so the Forster / Gregory 06 results may nevertheless be a close approximation to a measurement of equilibrium climate sensitivity.

The bottom of a cloud is the altitude at which the temperature is low enough for the equilibrium to shift to the point where droplets become visible.

As P.r ² / R ² < P follows that: a) the shell has a lower temperature than the inner sphere b) the shell and the inner sphere are not in thermal equilibrium (e.g there is a net flux going from the inner sphere to the shell) c) The difference of temperature between the shell and the inner sphere (so the net flux) increases as R increases..

The up going radiation (which is contributing to the thermal equilibrium of the stratosphere) is now slightly lower than previously which results in the lowering of the temperature of the Stratosphere.

This diagram shows that, once the hot surface temperature was established who knows how long ago, it reached an thermal equilibrium state with a large amount of energy transfer between the surface and the lower levels of the atmosphere, and the planet as a whole reached an equilibrium state with the Sun.

For the much lower stabilisation scenarios (category I and II, Figure 5.1), the equilibrium temperature may be reached earlier.

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.

... he realized the extreme complexity of the temperature control at any particular region of the earth's surface, and also that radiative equilibrium was not actually established, but if any substance is added to the atmosphere which delays the transfer of low temperature radiation, without interfering with the arrival or distribution of the heat supply, some rise of temperature appears to be inevitable in those parts which are furthest from outer space.

Example 4 is the one of interest where the first body has reached an equilibrium temperature with the sun and then a second body with a slightly lower temperature is moved into proximity.

A widely noted 2013 study that compared the historical record of temperatures and CO2 levels since1860 found an Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS, now the preferred term) at the lower end of the range, ruling out 3 °C sensitivity.

If the temperature of the object is to low to allow equilibrium then the body will heat up until it reaches a temperature that satisfies this equality.

Lets say the warmer surface was in thermodynamic equilibrium with its surroundings if then a colder object is brought near and it has a lower temperature than the surroundings then the colder object will increase the heat loss from the warmer object.