Sentences with phrase «know toa»

How do you know the TOA imbalance was always positive (e.g. a) before the industrial revolution, and b) before satellite measurements?

How do we know TOA imbalance began or changed after the industrial revolution?»

Luckily, they know the TOA imbalance to 0.15 Wm - 2 with a 95 % confidence level, I am sure that wouldn't change:)

Of course, we know TOA fluxes must continue to warm globally on a decadal basis because we have OHC data.

Are there no TOA measurements of adequate precision?

Not exact matches

I was hoping that Arsenal would produce a convincing performance in the Premier League yesterday and record a big win over Southampton, As we all know that did not happen and you could argue that the Gunners were lucky to get any win at all, but thanks toa late goal from Danny Welbeck all the points did go to Arsenal.

Removing all CO2 would result in a radiative forcing of -22 W / m2, TOA — I don't know the tropopause level with stratospheric adjustment value; assuming it is similar to in proportion to the TOA forcing as for doubling CO2, removing all CO2 might have a tropopause level with stratospheric adjustment forcing somewhere roughly around -30 W / m2, though that proportionality may break down as we get to a point where CO2 is not saturated... But using 22/3.7 and 30/3.7, it appears for a rough estimate that the logarithmic proportionality for CO2 may break down before about 6 to 8 halvings of CO2.

Since the 155 W / m2 GHE is the GHE forcing based on the present climate (in the sense that removing all GH agents (only their LW opacity, keeping solar radiation properties constant) results in a forcing of -155 W / m2 at TOA for the present climate, and we know that without any GHE, in the isothermal blackbody surface approximation, the temperature will fall approximately 33 K without any non-Planck feedbacks), it can be compared to smaller climate forcings made in the context of the present climate (such as a doubling CO2.)

So while, in the isothermal blackbody surface approximation, if the starting surface temperature is 288 K and we know the OLR is reduced from surface emission by 150 W / m2 via GHE, we know that removing all greenhouse agents will have a TOA forcing of -150 W / m2, (and some forcing at the tropopause, etc.) which will cool the surface temperature to about 255 K at equilibrium, absent non-Planck feedbacks.

By taking a known full spectrum Solar TOA value and you can measure with the same instrument the emitted or upwelling TOA value you should be able to discern the residual energy added to the earth.

Pekka — «When the TOA radiation budget is known the warming of the Earth system is known in terms of energy.

Several runs with the model under future emissions scenarios where the radiative imbalance is known exactly and a distinct energy imbalance at TOA was occurring nonetheless featured several stases in surface temperatures for more than a decade.

TOA values are known within about ± 3 % or better, except that the net is (or was) 0.85 ± 0.15 W m − 2 (Hansen et al. 2005), and surface fluxes are constrained within 5 % except for solar - reflected, LH, and LW, where errors may be as much as 10 %.»

When the TOA radiation budget is known the warming of the Earth system is known in terms of energy.

The adiabatic theory would hold that CO2 actually acts as a coolant to the atmosphere, by trapping heat and carrying up to TOA to be released,... just as the other well known GHG, water vapor, does.

«It is well known that the lapse rate and water vapor feedbacks compensate each other at the TOA (e.g., Cess 1975; Zhang et al. 1994; Soden and Held 2006; Held and Shell 2012).»

No where do i find what temperature they are talking about, they talked about balance, but for any single measurement at toa, it'll never be in balance, because the planet below emitting the energy is always in change (seasons).

which they say is consistent with the known net TOA flux.

Yes in fact we know that the paradigm of only the globally average TOA radiative forcing mattering must be erroneous as it fails to explain how Milankovitch forcing (changes in insolation) causes the glacial interglacial cycles, when it is a forcing which is tiny on a global scale (even hemisphericaly completely out of phase!)

By 8:40, after being confronted with the facts of the case, and perhaps consulting one of those unread climate science texts that form the theme of my narrative, he wisely retreated from» tiny» to the textbook value he earlier denied, informing those that didn't already know that» annual average at TOA for 90N is 173W / m ^ 2 while at 0 degrees it is 417W / m ^ 2.

Even Mosher who says he knows what the Climate Sensitivity is [2 years ago] and says we can all work it out from TOA will not commit himself to a range but I bet it is a lot lower for him now as well.

I do nt know how to put graphs on this site but if you go to the link and look at the graph you will see that the K degrees are around 200 at 100 km up which everyone agrees is the TOA.

This is the frequently cited extra forcing estimated at the top of the atmosphere (TOA), and this is where some of the assumptions made above don't quite hold (the picture is correct for a planet in equilibrium, but during a transition the planet is no longer in an equilibrium) and extra energy is taken up by warming of the oceans and surface.

Ya know Joel, if we lived in the thermosphere, which is TOA, I'd be more concerned about it.

BTW, I have been known to miscount decimal places, so I wouldn't bet a large amount that these numbers aren't off by a factor of ten — YMMV, and one [Alistair & Nigel] would learn a lot by checking these estimates with other numbers — e.g. the TOA insolation is ~ 344 W / m ^ 2; starting there, do my numbers still make sense?

Whilst I know this is very simplistic, but am I to assume that the driver behind the Purkey and Johnson is not that they found increased temperatures in the ocean depths but that the percieved TOA imbalance sent them looking for where it might be?

Unfortunately the only place we know something about the fluxes is the TOA because it is there that we will postulate that radiation in = radiation out.

The recently revised TOA radiation from CERES, known as EBAF Ed2.5, is shown by the black dashed curve.

So yes, the «forcing» related to CO2 is imho well known — from a purely radiative theory at TOA level.