Sentences with phrase «term equilibrium temperature»

This may produce «pauses» in the temperature record, but does not appreciably affect the long - term equilibrium temperature of the climate system

Not exact matches

At the moment, the kelvin is defined in terms of the temperature at which ice, liquid water and water vapour can coexist in equilibrium — 273.16 K or 0.01 °C.

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.

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.

I never asserted that sensitivity in terms of equilibrium time - average surface temperature change per unit change in TOA or even tropopause - level forcing (with or without stratospheric adjustment) would be the same for each type of forcing for each climatic state and the external forcings that maintain it (or for that matter, for each of those different of forcings (TOA vs tropopause, etc.) with everything held constant.

Heat capacity that is «used» over a longer period of time (penetration of temperature change through the depths of the ocean and up to regions of upwelling) would leave a more persistent residual imbalance, but the effect would only just stall the full change to equilibrium climate, not change the long term equilibrium sensitivity.)

Over very long time periods such that the carbon cycle is in equilibrium with the climate, one gets a sensitivity to global temperature of about 20 ppm CO2 / deg C, or 75 ppb CH4 / deg C. On shorter timescales, the sensitivity for CO2 must be less (since there is no time for the deep ocean to come into balance), and variations over the last 1000 years or so (which are less than 10 ppm), indicate that even if Moberg is correct, the maximum sensitivity is around 15 ppm CO2 / deg C. CH4 reacts faster, but even for short term excursions (such as the 8.2 kyr event) has a similar sensitivity.

Scientists often talk about it in terms of the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), which is the long - term temperature increase that we expect from a permanent doubling of atmospheric CO2.

In my earlier posting, I tried to make the distinction that global climate change (all that is changing in the climate system) can be separated into: (1) the global warming component that is driven primarily by the increase in greenhouse gases, and (2) the natural (externally unforced) variability of the climate system consisting of temperature fluctuations about an equilibrium reference point, which therefore do not contribute to the long - term trend.

That is probably an inappropriate use of an equilibrium climate sensitivity parameter and would therefore overstate the short term temperature impact.

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.

The things that I say can affect the long term equilibrium are things that affect the rate of cloud formation, as that is the main control on excess temperature.

The notion that there is, in nature, «the climate sensitivity» (TECS) is scientifically nonsensical, for TECS is defined in terms of the equilibrium temperature ∆ T but ∆ T is not an observable feature of the real world.

Note that even if such a change in the temperature equilibrium does occur it will not be significant in practical terms from just CO2 and especially not from just human CO2.

The only meaning in a genuine change in the rate of warming is that the longer term trend provides a slight change in evidence for equilibrium climate sensitivity — perhaps there was more «internal variability» associated with some of the late C20 temperature rise...

Radiative equilibrium does drive towards an isothermal state, but mixing goes towards an isentropic state, which is a recognized term indicating constant potential temperature (also dry adiabatic) because the log of potential temperature is basically the entropy in thermodynamic terms.

Therefore, changes in density N of total air are governed by hydrostatic equilibrium condition dp / dz = - ρ g = - NM g. Using the hydrostatic equilibrium and the ideal gas law you can easily express the reference term γ ∂ N / ∂ z via g and temperature.

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.

Only huge catastrophic changes capable of altering the temperature of the whole body of the oceans can set a new global equilibrium in the short term (less than millennia).

By assuming a uniform warming rate everywhere and only using a short temperature record, they underpredict the true long - term equilibrium sensitivity by underestimating the water vapor feedback.

Measuring climate sensitivity as a surface temperature delta has to be understood as a long - term equilibrium result not a short - term outcome.

One key point is whether the simple method you've used here provides a reliable estimate of ECS, which is defined as the long - term change in global mean temperature for a doubling of the CO2 concentration, once the temperature has reached equilibrium.

Specifically, the term is defined as how much the average global surface temperature will increase if there is a doubling of greenhouse gases (expressed as carbon dioxide equivalents) in the air, once the planet has had a chance to settle into a new equilibrium after the increase occurs.

You've used a common approach where the observed temperature change takes the place of the equilibrium temperature change term, and the observed RF takes the place of the RF for doubled CO2 - and knowing the RF for doubled CO2, it's just a matter of using the ratios as you do in your paragraph starting «Now comes the fun bit».

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.

But, at least to first - order, why can we usefully adopt a top - of - atmosphere (TOA) perspective to determine surface temperature, even though the surface energy budget must also close in equilibrium (and which includes many different non-radiative terms)?