Sentences with phrase «near equilibrium temperature»

That is because the surface and the atmosphere are near equilibrium temperature.

Not exact matches

At any real temperature (one that is above absolute zero) all the components of the crystal are in motion, but all remain near their equilibrium positions.9

It is worth adding though, that temperature trends over the next few decades are more likely to be correlated to the TCR, rather than the equilibrium sensitivity, so if one is interested in the near - term implications of this debate, the constraints on TCR are going to be more important.

Since anthropogenic emitted CO2 comes out of a power plant stacks / vehicle exhausts at an elevated temperature (due to the trivial manmade waste heat energy), and then cools down to near equilibrium with the rest of the atmosphere, why would this new CO2 then absorb more energy and heatup again?

It is worth adding though, that temperature trends over the next few decades are more likely to be correlated to the TCR, rather than the equilibrium sensitivity, so if one is interested in the near - term implications of this debate, the constraints on TCR are going to be more important.

Radiative equilibrium at small LW optical thickness occurs when the whole atmosphere has a temperature such that the Planck function is about half of that of the surface (a skin temperature), whereas at larger LW optical thicknesses, the equilibrium profile has a signficant drop in the Planck function through the atmosphere, approaching half the OLR value at TOA and approaching the surface value towards the surface — of course, convection near the surface will bring a closer match between surface and surface - air temperatures.

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).

In this work the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is estimated based on observed near - surface temperature change from the instrumental record, changes in ocean heat content and detailed RF time series.

The last millennium was a near equilibrium with decadal temperatures staying within a half degree of the average only modulated by volcanoes and the sun, and to a small extent by the Milankovitch cooling trend.

Try, really try, to address just Jelbring's imaginary world, perfectly insulated above and below, ideal gas in between, near - Earth gravity, infinite time for the system to reach true thermodynamic equilibrium (or long enough for a non-GHG to reach thermal equilibrium through radiation, which is going to be a hell of a lot longer than its thermal relaxation through conductivity for a gas on average 200 - 300K in temperature at 1 g).

Does the atmospheric pressure, no GH gases, effect the overall equilibrium temperature of the near surface of a planet?

Furthermore ECS is useless for back - of - the - envelope calculations of temperature in 2100, since temperature will be nowhere near equilibrium given the big step - up in CO2 over the previous 150 years.

If you want to prove that there is a non-GHG GE involving the dynamic motion of gases, play right on through, but realize that Jelbring's paper isn't about that and is incorrect because it ascribes the same effect to a completely static, completely dry ideal gas that has been left in place, isolated, for a billion years (or as long as equilibrium takes, which won't be anywhere near a billion years at a joule of conductive transport per meter of atmosphere per degree kelvin of temperature difference per 40 seconds).

That means that the sinks follow the increase in the atmosphere at a near fixed ratio to total CO2 in the atmosphere in excess above the (temperature controlled) equilibrium.

The above also is true for the opposite effect: if there were no other fast releases (like lots of volcanoes spewing lots of CO2 in short time), the ocean temperature will give more or less CO2, until a new dynamic equilibrium between ocean releases (mainly near the tropics) and sinks (mainly near the poles) and the biosphere releases and sinks is reached.

I have, incidentally, found using a multilayer diffusive ocean model that there is a near complete identity in the path of the model surface temperature response to a step forcing, for the better part of a century, over a wide range of equilibrium climate sensitivities if effective ocean diffusivity is varied to compensate.

We assume that Chylek (2008) is right to find transient and equilibrium climate sensitivity near - identical; that allof the warming from 1980 - 2005 was anthropogenic; that the IPCC's values for forcings and feedbacks are correct; and, in line 2, that McKitrick is right that the insufficiently - corrected heat - island effect of rapid urbanization since 1980 has artificially doubled the true rate of temperature increase in the major global datasets.

Re # 134 AK, as you point out, cold deep water brought to the surface will sink unless it is distributed widely enough to mix with the surface water and reach an equilibrium temperature that will keep it near the top.

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.