Sentences with phrase «averaged fluxes at»

The present study employs the weekly - and monthly - averaged fluxes at 1 ° x 1 ° resolution available during the study period March 1992?

This is the average flux at TOA for every place on earth.

Not exact matches

The neutrino fluxes examined by McNutt were monthly averages from the longest - running solar neutrino experiment, operated by Raymond Davis and his colleagues at the Homestake gold mine in Lead, South Dakota.

From my experience of a couple of years (1980 - 2) the local and regional solar surface flux averaged less than 70 % from flux at the top of the atmosphere (and for some periods of months even much less).

As Jamie [Morison] mentioned, water at 300 m depth is much warmer, has a greater heat content and is continuously present but is still on average unable to contribute to any larger heat flux to the underside of the ice, due to the strong stratification of the upper Arctic.

Of course, in such a time average, each location's fluxes (energy, and also momentum and mass) are balanced, with vertical imbalances (generally a net gain in heat at lower latitudes and net loss in higher latitudes, especially in winter) are balanced by horizontal fluxes.

At least in the global time average, the non-radiative fluxes through and above the tropopause can be approximated as zero.

In the approximation of zero non-radiative vertical heat fluxes above the tropopause, net upward LW flux = net downward SW flux (equal to all solar heating below) at each vertical level (in the global time average for an equilibrium climate state) at and above the tropopause (for global averaging, the «vertical levels» can just be closed surfaces around the globe that everywhere lie above or at the tropopause; the flux would then be through those surfaces, which wouldn't be precisely horizontal but generally approximately horizontal).

It is more useful to average over a hemisphere, or maybe a latitude band, or even at a single point that responds instantly to the solar flux (removing the factor of 1/4 from the equation) depending upon the nature of the problem.

(In the global time average, diffusion of latent heat is in the same direction as sensible heat transport, but latent heat will tend to flow from higher to lower concentrations of water vapor (or equilibrium vapor pressure at the liquid / solid water surface), and regionally / locally, conditions can arise where the latent heat and sensible heat fluxes are oppositely directed.)

The equilibrium response to an addition of RF at a level is an increase in net upward flux consisting of LW radiation (the Planck response, PR) plus a convective flux response CR; CR is approximately zero at and above the tropopause in the global time average.

This would actually not be true at sufficiently high latitudes in the winter hemisphere, except that some circulation in the upper atmosphere is driven by kinetic energy generated within the troposphere (small amount of energy involved) which, so far as I know, doesn't result in much of a global time average non-radiative energy flux above the tropopause, but it does have important regional effects, and the result is that the top of the stratosphere is warmer than the tropopause at all latitudes in all seasons so far as I know.

Non-radiative heat fluxes drop to approximately zero (at least for the global time average) going above the tropopause (there is a little leakage of convection through the stratosphere and mesosphere via upward propagation of kinetic energy and the Brewer - Dobson (does that term include the mesospheric part?)

For a small amount of absorption, the emission upward and downward would be about the same, so if the upward (spectral) flux from below the layer were more than 2 * the (average) blackbody value for the layer temperature (s), the OLR at TOA would be reduced more than the net upward flux at the base of the layer, decreasing CO2 TOA forcing more than CO2 forcing at the base, thus increasing the cooling of the base.

There can / will be local and regional, latitudinal, diurnal and seasonal, and internal variability - related deviations to the pattern (in temperature and in optical properties (LW and SW) from components (water vapor, clouds, snow, etc.) that vary with weather and climate), but the global average effect is at least somewhat constrained by the global average vertical distribution of solar heating, which requires the equilibrium net convective + LW fluxes, in the global average, to be sizable and upward at all levels from the surface to TOA, thus tending to limit the extent and magnitude of inversions.)

I've looked at the surface latent and sensible heat flux averaged for a polar cap (north of 70N).

«Because the solar - thermal energy balance of Earth [at the top of the atmosphere (TOA)-RSB- is maintained by radiative processes only, and because all the global net advective energy transports must equal zero, it follows that the global average surface temperature must be determined in full by the radiative fluxes arising from the patterns of temperature and absorption of radiation.»

As soon as the flux is halved, the maximum temperature the «averaged» flux can generate at the surface becomes -18 C (via Stef - Boltz»).

I'm not going to review the various arguments that indicate that this is indeed the equilibrium — they are straightforward consideration of the integrals over the blackbody spectra from the two bodies that shows that the hotter one loses heat (on average) and the colder one gains heat (on average) until they are at the same temperature and have identical spectra, where the (time / frequency averaged integral of the) flux of the Poynting vector vanishes within microscopic thermal fluctuations of the sort that are routinely ignored in thermodynamics.

Absorption by clouds and atmosphere reduces solar flux at the surface to an average of about 200 W / m2.

On average, at all stations, the sensitivity of surface shortwave flux to changes in cloud cover is about -0.5 ± 0.1 W m - 2 % -1 in winter according to both ground - based and satellite observations but in summer reaches -1.5 ± 0.3 and -1.8 ± 0.2 W m - 2 % -1 according to ground - based and satellite observations, respectively.

The change in average radiant flux at the surface is too little to be more than a small part of the puzzle.

Panel (a) shows the CR flux (red line) from combined Moscow and Climax neutron monitor data, and the globally averaged ISCCP IR low (> 680 mb / < 3.2 km) cloud anomaly plotted at a monthly resolution from June 1983 to December 1994, (b) shows the local correlation coefficient (r - values) achieved between the cloud and CR flux data for 12 - month (boxcar) smoothed values.

There is an estimate given by Dr. Crisp of approximately 17 w / m ^ 2 Solar flux at the surface averaged over the whole surface, with obviously more at the equator.

These metrics emphasise fields between 30S and 30N including 2 m air temperature (Willmott and Matsuura 2000), vertically averaged air temperature (ERA40, Uppala et al. 2005), latent heat fluxes of the ocean (Yu et al. 2008), zonal winds at 300 mb (ERA40, Uppala et al. 2005), longwave and shortwave cloud forcing (CERES2, Loeb et al. 2009), precipitation over land and ocean (GPCP, Adler et al. 2003), sea level pressure (ERA40, Uppala et al. 2005), vertically averaged relative humidity (ERA40, Uppala et al. 2005).

I can see isolated cases as compression at the poles and other curiosities but not on the average, and besides, even with those effects the temperature gradient is rarely actually inverted so in a net sense that is only slowing the cooling of the surface at the expense of equal cooling in the atmosphere which ends in a greater temperature gradient therefore a greater flux of energy upward to space.

The solar flux at the surface averages 161.2 watts per square meter (Trenberth et al. 2009).

To return to an earlier point I raised that a linear lapse rate mathematically translates a temperature change at any altitude to other altitudes including the surface, I remain interested in observational data on linearity is terms of a flux - weighted global average.

Namely: If the Incident flux at the earth is 1366W / m ^ 2, that number averaged over the globe becomes 341.5 W / m ^ 2.

The flux at the earth of 1.37 W / m ^ 2 is a measured entity, as such that flux can not account for a surface temperature of 15C (average).

Take a point 30 degrees from the equator, and you'd get a flux of Cos 30 degrees * flux at equator, for a temperature of (0.866 * 458.366 / 390.7) ^ 0.25 * 288K = 289.14 K, still above 288K, the presumed average for the earth.

Since when the earth is turned away from the sun there is effectively 0W / m ^ 2 incident flux the average ToA can be at most So / 2.

Pablo, 173,500 terrwatts is the flux at the top of the atmosphere for a disk of the same average radius as Earth.