Yet we suggest that a pathway is still conceivable that could restore
planetary energy balance on the century time scale.
Yet we suggest that a pathway is still conceivable that could
restore planetary energy balance on the century time scale.
Slow feedbacks have little effect on the
immediate planetary energy balance, instead coming into play in response to temperature change.
Given the unusual magnitude of the
current planetary energy imbalance and uncertainty about its implications, careful monitoring of key metrics is needed.
With solar and
lunar planetary energy concentrated on your second house of personal finances, you need to try to step back and view your circumstances as objectively as possible.
Slow feedbacks have little effect on the
immediate planetary energy balance, instead coming into play in response to temperature change.
The principal climate forcing, defined as an imposed change
of planetary energy balance [1]--[2], is increasing carbon dioxide (CO2) from fossil fuel emissions, much of which will remain in the atmosphere for millennia [1], [3].
Our evaluation of a fossil fuel emissions limit is not based on climate models but rather on observational evidence of global climate change as a function of global temperature and on the fact that climate stabilization requires long -
term planetary energy balance.
The stratospheric emission must be in a limited wavelength band to get cooling and still
satisfy planetary energy balance.
Do there exist, in other words,
certain planetary energies which, overcoming the forces of repulsion that seem to be incurably opposed to human harmony, are tending inexorably to bring together and organize upon itself (unbelievable though this may seem) the terrifying multitude of milliards of thinking consciousnesses which forms the «reflective layer» of the earth?
This net loss / gain of
planetary energy during El Niño / La Niña is ishown in figure 3 for the tropics (a) and the global situation (b).
As mentioned in the introduction, the satellites which measure incoming and outgoing radiation at the top of Earth's atmosphere (TOA) can not measure the
small planetary energy imbalance brought about by global warming.
But I would have thought rather direct indications of an increase in net
planetary energy like rapid loss of Arctic sea ice should be enough to convince anyone that there has been no «slowdown».
It means that, for every W m $ ^ -LCB--2 -RCB- $ of excess energy we put into our system, our model predicts that the surface temperature must increase by $ -1 / \ lambda = 0.3 $ K in order to
re-establish planetary energy balance.
A great primer in Physics Today
on planetary energy balance from our very own Ray Pierrehumbert (link to pdf available here).
The general argument however is being discussed by rasmus in the context
of planetary energy balance: the impact of additional CO2 is to reduce the outgoing longwave radiation term and force the system to accumulate excess energy; the imbalance is currently on the order of 1.45 * (10 ^ 22) Joules / year over the globe, and the temperature must rise allowing the outgoing radiation term to increase until it once again matches the absorbed incoming stellar flux.
Our evaluation of a fossil fuel emissions limit is not based on climate models but rather on observational evidence of global climate change as a function of global temperature and on the fact that climate stabilization requires long -
term planetary energy balance.
However even the moderate scenarios which have eventual stabilisation give more warming than 0.8 C. Even in the extremely unlikely event that there is no further growth in emissions, the
current planetary energy imbalance (estimated to be almost 1W / m2)(due to the ocean thermal inertia) implies that there is around 0.5 C extra warming already in the pipeline that will be realised over the next 20 to 30 years.
It has been shown that the dominant climate forcing, CO2, must be reduced to no more than 350 ppm to
restore planetary energy balance (Hansen et al., 2008) and keep climate near the Holocene level, if other forcings remain unchanged.
Smaller contributions to
planetary energy imbalance are from heat gain by the deeper ocean (+0.10 W / m2), energy used in net melting of ice (+0.05 W / m2), and energy taken up by warming continents (+0.02 W / m2).
The principal climate forcing, defined as an imposed change of
planetary energy balance [1]--[2], is increasing carbon dioxide (CO2) from fossil fuel emissions, much of which will remain in the atmosphere for millennia [1], [3].
Sea levels are still rising, ice is still receding, spring is still coming earlier, there's still
a planetary energy imbalance, etc. etc..
There was a brief dip around the year 2000 following the extreme El Nino event of 1998, but with greenhouse emissions causing
a planetary energy imbalance of 0.85 watts per square metre [iv], there is inevitably a continual rising trend in global temperatures.
While Uranus is busy shaking things up, this month features
another planetary energy that's all about divine flow.
How are these data reconciled with estimates of
the planetary energy imbalance from a variety of model sources that are closer to 1.0 w / m ^ 2?
Perhaps there is room for more indicators inspired by the «big picture physics», such as
the planetary energy balance and the outgoing long - wave radiation (OLR).
Very recent, wide ranging review of temperature measurements in the oceans with a detailed discussion of the accuracy of the data,
planetary energy balance and the effect of the warming on sea levels.
Complete restoration of
the planetary energy balance (and thus full adjustment of the surface temperature) does not occur instantaneously due to the inherent inertia of the system, which lies mainly in the slow response times of the oceans and cryosphere.