Sentences with phrase «irradiance data in»

NREL, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, publishes irradiance data in its report Solar Radiation Data Manual for Flat - Plate and Concentrating Collectors.

Not exact matches

When the Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitor (ACRIM I) satellite ended its mission, there was a delay in launching ACRIM II, which meant that data from the Earth Radiation Budget Satellite (ERBS) satellite data had to be used during the intervening period.

On the other hand, Esper's data appear to be in close agreement with variations in cosmogenic isotopes whose production rates are indicators of variation in solar irradiance, and thus, global temperatures on Earth.

Amplification of the direct solar forcing is conceivable, e.g., through effects on ozone or atmospheric condensation nuclei, but empirical data place a factor of two upper limit on the amplification, with the most likely forcing in the range 100 — 120 % of the directly measured solar irradiance change [64].

Despite apparent artificial issues in long - term measurements of cloud from ISCCP, and the lack of reliability in low - cloud data from irradiance - based satellite cloud estimates, we find the ISCCP and MODIS datasets to be in close agreement over the past decade globally.

Thus it appears that, provided further satellite cloud data confirms the cosmic ray flux low cloud seeding hypothesis, and no other factors were involved over the past 150 years (e.g., variability of other cloud layers) then there is a potential for solar activity induced changes in cloudiness and irradiance to account for a significant part of the global warming experienced during the 20th century, with the possible exception of the last two decades.

If the data was somehow adjusted for changes in solar irradiance over the period, it might show an even stronger increase trend.

The data show a wellestablished 11 - year cycle in irradiance that varies by 0.08 % from solar cycle minima to maxima, with no signifi cant long - term trend.

Given the total irrelevance of volcanic aerosols during the period in question, the only very modest effect of fossil fuel emissions and the many inconsistencies governing the data pertaining to solar irradiance, it seems clear that climate science has no meaningful explanation for the considerable warming trend we see in the earlier part of the 20th century — and if that's the case, then there is no reason to assume that the warming we see in the latter part of that century could not also be due to either some as yet unknown natural force, or perhaps simply random drift.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/did-the-sun-hit-record-highs-over-the-last-few-decades/ «Regardless of any discussion about solar irradiance in past centuries, the sunspot record and neutron monitor data (which can be compared with radionuclide records) show that solar activity has not increased since the 1950s and is therefore unlikely to be able to explain the recent warming.»

3, Eric, in line: From examining the data records I conclude: Changes in solar irradiance explain perhaps one - quarter of the increase in temperature during the last century.

The use of even more recently computer - reconstructed total solar irradiance data (whatever have large uncertainties) for the period prior to 1976 would not change any of the conclusions in my paper, where quantitative analyses were emphasized on the influences of humans and the Sun on global surface temperature after 1970 when direct measurements became available.

The first is uncertainty about the assigned magnitudes — for example, if solar influence must be scaled up to account for forcing not apparent in the total irradiance data, the solar role would increase.

Global compilations from ground - based radiometer data (Liepert, 2002), covering the period 1960 - 1990, suggest a substantial decrease in solar irradiance reaching the ground.»

these data show no increasing solar irradiance trend to explain the earth's increase in temperature.

Simulations where the magnitude of solar irradiance changes is increased yield a mismatch between model results and CO2 data, providing evidence for modest changes in solar irradiance and global mean temperatures over the past millennium and arguing against a significant amplification of the response of global or hemispheric annual mean temperature to solar forcing.

If the sun were the dominant forcing, the planet would have a negative energy balance in 2005 — 2010, when solar irradiance was at its lowest level in the period of accurate data, i.e., since the 1970s [64], [71].

Several statistical analyses have shown that the data is not stationary and in a working paper not yet accepted by any journal Beenstock & Reingewertz showed that, ``... greenhouse gas forcings do not polynomially cointegrate with global temperature and solar irradiance.

In this case when the larger scope of the data is examined there is no correlation between solar irradiance and this global warming event.

It was in fact 2 things an energy decrease from solar irradiance in the 11 year cycle and a change in cloud cover that is associated with ENSO resulting in less reflected SW — seen in the CERES data.

... To determine the TCS metric, we use actual physical data for the: 1) average surface temperature anomaly of 1850 - 2012, 2) atmospheric CO2 concentration history, and 3) rise in Total Solar Irradiance over the same period of time.

(My money is firmly on an increase in solar irradiance, based on the 10 - Be data..).

Since a basic North American continental experiment was already successfully executed on the few post 911 clear sky days, I posit that simple solar L1 irradiance modification experiments could be designed to test the hypothesis without any serious side effects (certainly without moving an asteroid) to successfully obtain the desired data to enable more permanent temporary solutions, and in order to give us more time to develop the necessary carbon dioxide removal and sequestration schemes — aka carbon containing products).