Sentences with phrase «reach an equilibrium temperature»

The Enhanced GH Effects model for adding GHGs FAILS to account for the gases reaching equilibrium temperature per the gas law, and then refusing to accept more energy absorption.

The approximately 20 - year lag (between atmospheric CO2 concentration change and reaching equilibrium temperature) is an emerging property (just like sensitivity) of the global climate system in the GCM models used in the paper I linked to above, if I understood it correctly.

The upper atmosphere has a small heat capacity and reaches equilibrium temperature in considerably under a year; this feeds back on the forcing of the trosphere + surface, which are generally convectively coupled with the ocean (strongly with the upper ocean) and take a number of years to reach equilibrium.

If we take N2 and fill the volume, the N2 will reach an equilibrium temperature based on the temperature of the box and whatever radiation is absorbed.

Coffee on a hotplate — not boiling — of course will reach an equilibrium temperature dependent on the energy input and the temperature of the surrounding CO2.

Surely you agree that, in terms of temperature, until they reach an equilibrium temperature, since the net energy flow is from the warmer to the cooler, the cooler object only warms and the warmer object only cools.

It then starts to increase fairly slowly, increases in rate and finally slowly reaches the equilibrium temperature.

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.

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.

Not exact matches

The idea of climate inertia is that when you increase the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere it takes the climate system a good deal of time for all its components to fully adjust and reach a new equilibrium temperature.

Ice sheet retreat continues until a new equilibrium temperature state is reached, one determined largely by the end - point of atmospheric CO2.

Hence, when the air temperature decreases, ice and snow fields grow, and this continues until an equilibrium is reached.

After warming stops, an equilibrium will be reached in which the frequency of water molecules entering the atmosphere from the liquid will equal the frequencey of molecules entering the liquid from the atmosphere resulting in an equilibrium of transfer of water molecules and (if atmosphere and liquid are the same temperature) of energy transfers.

The temperature of the whole engine will reach equilibrium far faster than any one part of the engine will cool down.

All else equal, if CO2 goes up, it affects that balance, and temperature increases until a new equilibrium is reached (which takes a long time as the ocean is a big heat sink).

Radiation also works, of course, but the equilibrium with the planet temperature is reached either way.

The standard assumption has been that, while heat is transferred rapidly into a relatively thin, well - mixed surface layer of the ocean (averaging about 70 m in depth), the transfer into the deeper waters is so slow that the atmospheric temperature reaches effective equilibrium with the mixed layer in a decade or so.

Ice sheet retreat continues until a new equilibrium temperature state is reached, one determined largely by the end - point of atmospheric CO2.

Since the energy emitted goes like T ^ 4 power, the earth thus emits less energy back into space, which is why it has to warm (until it reaches a temperature when the earth is again emitting as much energy back out into space as it receives from the sun and so is back in equilibrium).

The problems with associating sensitivity with a temperature in 2100 are twofold: first, at the time we reach CO2 doubling, the temperature will lag behind the equilibrium value due to thermal inertia, especially in the ocean (thought experiment — doubling CO2 today will not cause an instant 3C jump in temperatures, any more than turning your oven on heats it instantly to 450F), and secondly, the CO2 level we are at in 2100 depends on what we do between now and then anyway, and it may more than double, or not.

(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.

With a GHG increase, say doubling of CO2, upon reaching equilibrium there will be a surface temperature increase by dTs, and a change in the stratospheric temperature by an amount dTt.

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).

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.

The heat source may have reached a constant temperature, but the Earth isn't necessarily at equilibrium with the new warmer environment yet.

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).

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.

During that process, upward LW radiation reaching the upper atmosphere will increase (depending on albedo / solar heating feedbacks), which will change the equilibrium temperature of the upper atmopshere again.

As long as there is an increase in the GHG induced air temp there will be an increase in convection / conduction as feedback, UNTIL they reach equilibrium, at the original temperature.

As such, when emissions quit rising, according to their framework, the climate system is no longer being forced, but the temperature will continue to rise and it will still take a considerable amount of time for the system to reach equilibrium.

When we stop raising the level of carbon dioxide, the temperature continues to rise because it takes a while for the climate system to reach equilibrium.

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.

Rising ocean temperature increases cloud cover until such time as clouds starve the ocean of solar energy until an equilibrium is reached.

Based on the ice core dCO2 / dT relationship, the increase in temperature since the LIA has added not more than 6 ppmv to the atmosphere to reach a new equilibrium.

But these are limited in time, as a new equilibrium (3 ppmv / °C) is reached fast, longer periods of increased or decreased temperature will have more influence (8 ppmv / °C), but still limited.

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).»

In that time to reach a new equilibrium the amount of energy «stored» in the planet will increase, raising the temperature of the Earth.

I would expect a temperature rise that increased evaporation would, once equilibrium was reached, cause * all * the air to become more humid.

Can you show me some documentation that theres is indeed reached equilibrium so fast after temperature change?

You can call this nonlinearity if you like, but as I tried to argue in that post, I think it is better to regard it a linear in the temperature field — it is just that this field changes its structure as a new equilibrium is reached.

In other words, regions receiving twice as much flux do not need to be twice as hot to reach equilibrium and cold regions have a more important weight in the mean temperature.

With regard to the diabatic process the exchange of radiation in and out reaches thermal equilibrium relatively quickly (leaving Earth's oceans out of the scenario for current purposes) and once the temperature rise within the atmosphere has occurred then equilibrium has been achieved and energy in at TOA will match energy out.

The planet reaches an essential equilibrium during these periods in that it reaches a certain temperature range for 10,000 or 20,000 years and does not continue the warming it did to rise out of the glacial period.

At the end of a climatic shift, the temperature setup of the entire planet will have changed — so far until a new equilibrium energy budget is reached.

At the same temperature, at pH - values between 7 and 9, CO2 reaches 99 % chemical equilibrium with water and calcium carbonate in about 100 seconds (Dreybrodt et al., 1996).

Thus if we could stop today with all emissions, nature still would be a net sink, but the (average) sink rate would decrease to zero over time when the basic equilibrium setpoint is reached, about 290 ppmv for the current temperature.

I will howl at you that you can't tell me the glass of water has reached an equilibrium with the ambient environment because the ambient temperature is inhomogeneous and always changing.

[Equilibrium] climate sensitivity is defined as the increase in global mean surface temperature (GMST), once the ocean has reached equilibrium, resulting from a doubling of the equivalent atmospheric CO2 concentration, being the concentration of CO2 that would cause the same radiative forcing as the given mixture of CO2 and other forcing Equilibrium] climate sensitivity is defined as the increase in global mean surface temperature (GMST), once the ocean has reached equilibrium, resulting from a doubling of the equivalent atmospheric CO2 concentration, being the concentration of CO2 that would cause the same radiative forcing as the given mixture of CO2 and other forcing equilibrium, resulting from a doubling of the equivalent atmospheric CO2 concentration, being the concentration of CO2 that would cause the same radiative forcing as the given mixture of CO2 and other forcing components.