Sentences with phrase «temperature response gives»

Given those assumptions, looking at the forcing over a long - enough multi-decadal period and seeing the temperature response gives an estimate of the transient climate response (TCR) and, additionally if an estimate of the ocean heat content change is incorporated (which is a measure of the unrealised radiative imbalance), the ECS can be estimated too.

For one thing, the energy balance between radiative forcing and temperature response gives a non-linear relation between the forcing, F, and temperature to the fourth power, T4 (the Stefan - Boltzmann law).

Not exact matches

This gives it high structural flexibility in response to changing temperature or pressure, which is the origin of its unique behavior.

«the last glacial period is a good example of a large forcing (~ 7 W / m ^ 2 from ice sheets, greenhouse gases, dust and vegetation) giving a large temperature response (~ 5 ºC) and implying a sensitivity of about 3ºC (with substantial error bars).»

As we have discussed previously, the last glacial period is a good example of a large forcing (~ 7 W / m2 from ice sheets, greenhouse gases, dust and vegetation) giving a large temperature response (~ 5 ºC) and implying a sensitivity of about 3ºC (with substantial error bars).

Suppose also that — DESPITE THIS STABILIZING MECHANISM some as - yet unknown ocean circulation cycle operates that is the sole cause of the Holocene centennial scale fluctuations, and that this cycle has reversed and is operating today, yielding a temperature change that happens to mimic what models give in response to radiative forcing changes.

We calculate global temperature change for a given CO2 scenario using a climate response function (Table S3) that accurately replicates results from a global climate model with sensitivity 3 °C for doubled CO2 [64].

[Response: Halving global emissions by 2050 (relative to 1990 levels) should give us a good chance to stop global warming short of 2 ºC above preindustrial temperatures.

[Response: There is a comprehensive arctic buoy program that can be used to give temperature data.

«the last glacial period is a good example of a large forcing (~ 7 W / m ^ 2 from ice sheets, greenhouse gases, dust and vegetation) giving a large temperature response (~ 5 ºC) and implying a sensitivity of about 3ºC (with substantial error bars).»

If you're going to frame a temperature response as a percentage change in response to given size of forcing change, then at a bare minimum you need to use the temperature change due to that forcing as the denominator.

I have still not found the details for the model run that produced fig. 7 in Hansen et al. (2011) but I have looked at some 100 year responses to 2x, 4x, and 8x carbon at the GISS web site and I am thinking that I am on the right track in clearing up this itch: The climate response function gives us a way to calculate the average temperature given a forcing without doing a whole model run for that.

Potential carbon cycle feedbacks (which are generally expected to be amplifying) go into the temperature responses and their uncertainty is a big part of the ranges given.

Suppose also that — DESPITE THIS STABILIZING MECHANISM some as - yet unknown ocean circulation cycle operates that is the sole cause of the Holocene centennial scale fluctuations, and that this cycle has reversed and is operating today, yielding a temperature change that happens to mimic what models give in response to radiative forcing changes.

The disequilibrium referred to comes from the fact that the ocean has a lot of thermal inertia and takes a long time to warm up, whereas the atmosphere has a short response time and quickly comes into equilibrium with any given ocean temperature, corresponding to the current amount of greenhouse gases.

(57j) For surface + tropospheric warming in general, there is (given a cold enough start) positive surface albedo feedback, that is concentrated at higher latitudes and in some seasons (though the temperature response to reduced summer sea ice cover tends to be realized more in winter when there is more heat that must be released before ice forms).

There is also an important question of the degree to which internal variability can influence the attributable temperature change, given that the Millar result is contingent on knowing what the forced temperature response of the system is.

A lot of the observation based estimates are likely biased low, as outlined in the Ringberg report just due to assumptions of linearity in the evolution of surface temperature in response to some given radiative nudge on the system.

HadCM3 is a mid-high sensitivity model that produces a greater temperature response to a given amount of greenhouse gas emissions than does PCM, a low - sensitivity model.

This was my mental equation dF = dH / dt + lambda * dT where dF is the forcing change over a given period (1955 - 2010), dH / dt is the rate of change of ocean heat content, and dT is the surface temperature change in the same period, with lambda being the equilibrium sensitivity parameter, so the last term is the Planck response to balance the forcing in the absence of ocean storage changes.

Generally accepted evidence gives us a good idea of the direct temperature response to CO2 forcing in the absence of feedbacks.

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.»

This means the remaining 60 % increase in CO2 will have to produce a temperature response of 2.6 C, an increase in sensitivity to 4.33 C. Given the exponetially declining effect of ^ CO2 this is contradictory to physical process.

We identify mechanisms associated with ecological responses (i.e., GPP) in a given location by reviewing associated variables (e.g., temperature, precipitation, VPD, soil moisture).

The surface temperature response, T, to a given change in atmospheric CO2 is calculated from an energy balance equation for the surface, with heat removed either by a radiative damping term or by diffusion into the deep ocean.

Given that tree growth is typically parabolic in response to temperature, how do you know a priori which side of the maximum you might be on when attempting a reconstruction?

If you look at the average global response to large volcanic eruptions, from Krakatoa to Pinatubo, you would see that the global temperature decreased by only about 0.1 °C while the hypersensitive climate models give 0.3 to 0.5 °C, not seen in reality.

«c) the information content in the temperature and OHC series is not sufficient to allow accurate estimation of ECS and equilibration time; a flux response function with a very long tail (high ECS, high equilibration time) may give a result similar to the Schwartz exponential response function with a low ECS and low equilibration time.»

I agree with you that the last decade really doesn't tell you that much about the long term trends, given the size of the error bars, but it does allow for some interesting analysis of the difference between individual temperature records during that period (e.g. ENSO responses of satellites vs. surface measurements, effects of different ways of treating arctic temperatures, etc.).

We calculate global temperature change for a given CO2 scenario using a climate response function (Table S3) that accurately replicates results from a global climate model with sensitivity 3 °C for doubled CO2 [64].

As policy makers contend with deve - loping responses to climate change and its impacts in Alaska and beyond, it is imperative that the use and interpretation of scientific studies to support policy development minimizes any potential for bias by giving due consideration to the methodsused to estimate temperature change.

Climate model studies since the Working Group I Third Assessment Report (TAR; IPCC, 2001) give medium confidence that the equilibrium global mean temperature response to a given RF is approximately the same (to within 25 %) for most drivers of climate change.

We will be able to give probabilistic estimates of the climate's transient sensitivity to greenhouse gas increases and will have an improved understanding of the response of sea ice, precipitation, and temperature extremes to warming.

My educated layman's physicist's gut (layman as far as climate science goes, not physics) tells me 2W / m2 out of the ocean seems pretty high given that the temperature difference is generated by a peak forcing of only -3.4 W / m2 - it implies that the ocean response is of the same order as the atmospheric response, which seems unlikely given the «impedance mismatch» between the ocean and atmosphere.

Traditionally, the notion has been that it is enough to give the tropopause forcing for the well - mixed gases in order to obtain an estimate of the surface temperature response.

Since the memes of the IPCC have not shown any tendency to change in response to current short term movements in the global temperature metric, any longer term trend remains moot, as it should be expected, given the absence of testable hypotheses on natural variability.

Both sets give very comparable temperature response.

In the end, the antics of the ocean and WV, which may indeed have the sun as the conductor, far outweigh that of co2 though an underlying signal may be there, which given the way temperatures bounce up and down in response to the enso, may be no greater than noise Peace out

This includes the Planck response, which is just the increase in OLR (outgoing longwave radiation) in response to temperature according to the Planck function and the given optical properties.

Given that the northern polar region is dominated by water, whereas the southern polar region is dominated by land, one would expect a greater temperature response to changes in ice extent in the Arctic than Antarctica.

Re 416 Bernd Herd — in climate science, for global climate change, specifically a global (average surface) temperature change in response to a global (typically average net tropopause - level after stratospheric adjustment) radiative forcing (or other heat source — although on Earth those tend not to be so big), where the radiative forcing may be in units of W / m ^ 2, so that equilibrium climate sensitivity is in K * m ^ 2 / W (it is often expressed as K / doubling CO2 as doubling CO2 has a certain amount of radiative forcing for given conditions).

If the sea level response to a change in temperature is an exponential decay to equilibrium then given that the 0.8 C temperature increase since pre-industrial times occurred over a relatively short time period relative to time scale of the ice - albedo feedback, the expected rate of sea level rise should be approximately 3 m / C * 0.8 C / 560 y = 43 cm per century.

On your side note, figs. 7 through 10 in this paper give some climate response functions (percentage full temperature response to an instantaneous doubling of CO2 which is then held steady as a function of time) http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha06510a.html

[Response: Our approach in that paper assumes a probability distribution that shifts towards warmer temperatures, but is otherwise unchanged — just like the simple example given in the second graph above.

The next year I would have no forcing but a partial continuation of the temperature response and that year would have a higher than expected temperature given no forcing is reported.

Given that surface temperatures have levelled off / slightly dipped for the last decade, what would be your response to a discovery that that the oceans have also not warmed over that period — i.e. that actually there is no warming waiting in the «pipeline»?

I put «forcing» in quotes because the actual phenomena undoubtedly included internal climate processes in addition to imposed perturbations, but for these purposes, what seems most relevant is that all relevant processes were likely to invoke similar feedbacks over the long term, given that climate feedbacks are basically a response to a temperature change rather than to the cause of the change.

If I am measuring temperature response to forcing for a given year and if all the forcing were to occur and was reported in that year but only part of the temperature response occurs then that year would show a lower than expected temperature.

[Response: I'm skeptical about methane for the PETM myself, in that the temperature change and pH change seems to require more CO2 than the isotope spike will give you, if it's methane.