Sentences with phrase «imbalance at»

We also examined the association between responses to the two work questions to see whether those who reported imbalance at the initiation stage were also more likely to report imbalance at the maintenance stage (RQ1).

Opler highligted the power imbalance at issue and the importance of advising on the need for independent legal advice «as a lawyer treads closer and closer to the line of encroaching on existing client rights in favour of strengthening his own economic position.»

However, LEI may serve as one such innovative development to level the playing field and reduce the financial power imbalance at play.

Recent Bill 166 separates Tarion into two agencies, but does not address the imbalance at the LAT for unrepresented consumers (Ontario government)

Clearly, there was a significant power imbalance at play.

Of importance to all regulators, the tribunal noted, in addressing injury to dignity (and in awarding $ 25,000 under this head of loss), the complainant was in an «extremely vulnerable position,» given that events were taking place at the very outset of his career, and involved interactions with his professional governing body, leading to «a significant power imbalance at play.»

While the planetary imbalance at TOA is too small to measure directly from satellite, instruments are far more stable than they are absolutely accurate with calibration stability < 0.3 Wm − 2 per decade (95 % confidence)(Loeb et al. 2009).

- Anthony] Guest Post by Bob Tisdale OVERVIEW I recently presented the modeled energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) in the post No Consensus: Earth's Top of...

Now the radiation imbalance at the top of the real atmosphere is not really a driver of anything, so much as a consequence of what is going on below and coming in from above, and of course there are other problems with the method which are well known (e.g. can all the forcings be just added up to find a net one, do some of them interact, are some of them heterogeneuous in space).

Either that or you have a massive radiative imbalance at the surface.

Earlier studies tend to use either the instantaneous radiative imbalance at the tropopause (Fi), or very similarly, the radiative imbalance at the Top - of - the - Atmosphere (TOA) after stratospheric adjustments — the adjusted forcing (Fa).

Peixoto and Oort (1992) in their book on climate physics show that even for timespans of a year, this metric provides a good snapshot of the planetary radiative imbalance at the top of the atmoshpere.

A: The volume integral (heat balance equation) as presented in Pielke (2003) http://blue.atmos.colostate.edu/publications/pdf/R-247.pdf suggests that the changes in ocean heat storage averaged over a year are a snapshot of the radiative imbalance at the top of the atmosphere.

You should go back and read Planetary Energy Imbalance at RC.

That is exactly the point: The whole reason you want to solve for the radiative imbalance at the top - of - the - atmosphere is that it is rather useless to solve for the surface where other energy flows are just as important.

You are confused: Saying we are solving for the radiative imbalance at the top - of - the - atmosphere doesn't mean that we are only interested in the temperature there... What it means is that we can use that value, along with the fact that the lapse rate in the troposphere will be determined mainly by convection to figure out what will happen at the surface most easily.

The limitations of OLS on data with a near unit root is well taken, but to claim that the temperature just changes stochastically, within bounds that are very far off what one would expect just from natural variability, is not convincing: Many parameters of the earth system are simultaneously showing signs of warming, plus there's still a positive radiation imbalance at the top of the atmosphere: The earth hasn't even warmed up yet to the full extent that the change in forcing implies.

Dana, just to make sure I understand — Fig. 1shows the TOA imbalance at 1.0 + / - 0.1 W / m2 at most.

If you think the net energy imbalance at TOA is negative, or outward, the present discussion is moot.

That is tropical SST imbalance at the margins, 20 - 30 South minus 20 - 30 North.

So the current hiatus in surface warming is a transient and global warming has not gone away: there is a continuing radiative imbalance at the top of atmosphere.

Observations may have insufficient frequency and spatial coverage to accurately determine the radiative imbalance at the necessary resolution

I agree that a 4 - ish W / m ^ 2 imbalance at the Tropopause implies a 1DegC - ish rise in the whole of the atmosphere's temperature, or that the outgoing balance has to be restored in some other way.

It is true that CO2 levels rose to much higher levels later, but it's important to remember that global temperature is responding to the magnitude of the flux imbalance at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) and not to the level of the forcing agent.

But that is not what satellite data are telling us: Trenberth et al (2009)-- ... Trenberth et al (2014)-- http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00294.1» ANSWER: quote from Trenberth 2014 conclusion: «From the estimates discussed here, it is clear that the net energy imbalance at TOA varies naturally in response to weather and climate variations, the most distinctive of which is ENSO.

Isaac Held here looks at how the simple two - box models relating the globally averaged energy imbalance at the TOA to the globally averaged surface temperature and concludes that a linear formulation deviates substantially from the behavior of GCM's.

DLR may be a symtom of warming — but the reason for warming is the energy imbalance at TOA.

BTW, with the radiation imbalance at 0.5 + / - a touch, the entire increase of CO2 forcing per doubling at 1 % of total, second and third order effect are a real possibility.

Actually the energy imbalance at the top of atmosphere suggests there should be even more heat in the ocean than Argo reports.

It was the instantaneous change in radiative imbalance at the tropopause, because stratospheric adjustments were expected to negate any change in OLR caused by increasing GHGs above the tropopause.

dS / dt is the change in energy stored in the global system as a result of an energy imbalance at TOA — which I believe is the standard explanation.

There is an important school of thought that does not rely on offsetting the forcing from increased CO2; instead it assumes that there really exists an imbalance at the TOA and that GW is taking place somewhere, but is not easily seen.

Another interpretation is that given a certain energy imbalance at the top of atmosphere, if the heat is not manifested as surface temperature rise then it goes elsewhere.

GHGs slow the release of Outgoing Long wave radiation («OLR»), allegedly reflected in the energy imbalance at the top of atmosphere.

No the missing heat is missing because its simply not there and that means there is a very good chance there is no radiative imbalance at the moment warming the planet.

That would be a change in albedo that would have reduced the imbalance at TOA leading to less overall warming of the Earth as whole.

Hence there occurs an imbalance at the top of the atmosphere and the oceans gain heat in roughly equal measure.

-- robust radiative physics — ground - based instrumental evidence that CO2 absorbs and therefore emits IR exactly in accordance with the physical theory — satellite data confirming this — satellite data apparently indicating a radiative imbalance at TOA — robust measurements of the fraction of atmospheric CO2 — increasing global OHC since the mid-C20th

You would do better to discuss why FG were not sure of their result for various practical reasons, e.g. the net radiative flux imbalance at the top of the atmosphere has only been measured for a very short time, and their study doesn't include albedo forcings from melting ice — if you're actually as interested in their results as you pretend to be.

0.85 W / m2 is the imbalance at the end of the decade.»

There is a persistent imbalance at the top of the atmosphere.

The climate responds to a flux imbalance at the TOA in such a way as to restore the balance — i.e., it tends toward equilibrium.

Regardless — once the atmosphere warms sufficiently there is of course no flux imbalance at TOA from this source.

There is sufficent energy to warm the atmosphere to the higher (more CO2) energy state such that there is no delay and there is no energy imbalance at TOA.

These additional molecules capture additional photons in the atmosphere leading to the idea of an energy imbalance at TOA.

But the so called energy imbalance at TOA is transitory at best even without the combustion priming.

Your hypothesis assumes that increased absorption of energy in the troposphere will be transmitted to the surface by convection, since radiative transfer doesn't change if the temperature remains constant, and the radiative imbalance at the TOA wouldn't change.

The radiation imbalance at the surface following a step change of CO2 is actually quite small.

The surface can only warm by absorbing more than it is emitting and that can only happen after the atmosphere begins to warm and the increased emission causes a radiative imbalance at the surface.

In other words — the flux imbalance at TOA is transient but the heat in the atmosphere and oceans remains.