Is the warming effect of additional CO2 in the atmosphere instantaneous and then amplified by feedback's?

I would assume that it is instantaneous to initiate, but if you were to assume a planet without the capability to provide feedback (like, a barren rock) I think it would still take a while to reach radiative equilibrium as the temperature of not just the air but the Earth has to warm up to a high enough level to balance out the increased DLR - due to thermal inertia, this would create a lag (especially considering our planet's oceans, to get away from the barren rock analogy). I don't know how long that lag is, I'm not sure how easy it would actually be to measure that as the climate doesn't ever really reach the equilibrium value, even though it constantly moves toward one. Short term noise would be something you'd have to correct for.

Then when taking feedback loops into account, measuring the lag might be even more difficult. Short answer: I'm pretty sure no. I can't name a figure for you off the top of my head though. The response would be longer the larger the radiative imbalance.

To clarify some possible ambiguity, I don't mean to suggest nobody has calculated an estimate; I'll see if I can find a source for you to reference about the CO2-only response, it will be a while though as I'm busy for a few hours...

Edit: sorry about the delay. I think jyush's link has good discussion on the lag issue I alluded to, and for a reference if it's useful for the CO2-only response:

http://maths.ucd.ie/met/msc/ClimSyn/heldsode00.pdf

~1 K for a doubling of CO2 without feedback, page 447 discusses this some. The response from both a thermal and physical (rising tropopause) standpoint will lead to a delay in equilibrium approach, but again not in first response.

maximum all feed back loops in nature are unfavorable. the sole one i comprehend of that may not a unfavorable feedback loop is the nuclear bomb. So permit's think of roughly this. all of us comprehend that the components has been lots warmer than at the instant. Why have been those comparable constructive feedbacks we hear approximately no longer in effect then? present day AGW followers say that we in simple terms start up the ball rolling, then constructive feedback loops, like will enhance in water vapor, will take over. yet, if this is all it takes, why did the worldwide no longer give up to exist back while the temperatures have been lots bigger? Or, how could the earth ever have cooled while for many of its lifetime, there have been NO glaciers? the undertaking with AGW followers are they deal in a working laptop or pc room. They plug numbers right into a working laptop or pc and get some effects. so a ways, the outcomes they have publicised have in no way come real. Are there extra hurricanes? Has the components being progressively increasing?, etc. the main feedback loop they are no longer able to account for are clouds. specific the comparable water vapor this is a eco-friendly homestead gasoline, additionally kinds clouds. Clouds are infamous for lowering the temp via blocking off the suns rays back into area. If we enhance water vapor, then clouds could additionally enhance. additionally, as Bob has reported, water vapor additionally can cool via precipitation. those 2 cooling effects could maximum probable over capacity any constructive effect. If no longer, then the worldwide, in accordance to the AGW followers, could have burst into flames thousands and thousands of years in the past. in no way have confidence people who attack the skeptics, no longer their techniques.

Like the Sun, the warming effect of additional CO2 is indeed immediate. However, the oceans have considerable thermal inertia. Because of this thermal inertia, according to a paper by James Hansen, the time lag between CO2 concentration and the Earth's temperature is about 40 years.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-the...

Many things other than CO2, such as the Sun, ENSO and volcanoes influence weather and climate. The main problem with the idea that current global warming is natural is that no known natural forcing has shown a trend that could explain this current global warming. Solar activity has shown a downward trend over the last fifty years and Earth's orbital variations have been in a very slow cooling trend for the last 6,000 years.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sun...

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ottobli/pubs/Otto-Blie...

You have misunderstood how the Earth's climate works, especially the role of the oceans. I suggest reading some explanations on non-skeptic websites, or downloading any number of discussions available from the National Academy Press.

LIAR, DENIAR!!!1

Sorry, just kidding. I wanted to see how it felt. It felt kind of retarded actually. I too thought it was an AGW position. I would also suspect it is true but I wouldn't pretend to know how much the effect is or how much it affects the feedbacks.

It's actually untrue. The effect of CO2 in the atmosphere as well as in the ocean has been widely misrepresented in the mainstream media. The effect of CO2 has actually little to do with heat retention or absorption of radiant solar energy. The propagation of these myths started as a means to effect political change by means of a mechanism that is largely unknown.

The actual effector of increased global temperatures is caused by Di-hydrogen monoxide. When it is released into the atmosphere it causes humidity to rise and by way of saturation, increasing temperatures.