Sentences with phrase «mean cloud cover»

[23] It is cloudy year - round, with mean cloud cover ranging from 60 % in winter to over 80 % in summer.

Palle et al. showed that the global monthly mean cloud cover decreased by around 4.5 % between 1985 and 2000.

That means cloud cover, ozone blanketness (my word but it works), other trace gas blanketness, water vapor blanketness, etc, that occur in context with this trade wind.

Not exact matches

For a subset of 14 relatively clear (cloudy) stations, the mean temperature drop was 0.91 ± 0.78 (0.31 ± 0.40) degrees C, but the mean temperature drops for relatively calm and windy stations were almost identical, indicating that cloud cover has a much greater effect than wind on the air temperature's response to an eclipse.

The analysis of high - frequency surface air temperature, mean sea - level pressure, wind speed and direction and cloud - cover data from the solar eclipse of 20 March 2015 from the UK, Faroe Islands and Iceland, published today (Monday 22 August 2016), sheds new light on the phenomenon.

Ultimately, the group focused its investigation on the five strategies that appear to hold the most promise: reducing emissions, sequestering carbon through biological means on land and in the ocean, storing carbon dioxide in a liquefied form in underground geological formations and wells, increasing Earth's cloud cover and solar reflection.

«Global mean time series of surface - and satellite - observed low - level and total cloud cover exhibit very large discrepancies, however, implying that artifacts exist in one or both data sets... The surface - observed low - level cloud cover time series averaged over the global ocean appears suspicious because it reports a very large 5 % - sky - cover increase between 1952 and 1997.

The Grolier Codex, the team argues, is also a «predetermined rather than observational» guide, meaning it declares what «should occur rather than what could be seen through the variable cloud cover of eastern Mesoamerica.

In the winter, you will find less tourists and a better chance of cloud cover which also means prime photography conditions.

«Harmonic Distortion» has worldwide environmental scope: marble clouds intricately patterned by wave formations; cyanotypes making apparent abstraction out of fifteen years of data showing that our cloud cover is reducing; a performance in which one woman is bound by another, Kinbakushi style, in state of the art fibre optic cable even as she tries to draw circles using the oldest of means — ochre pigment... So whether you wanted academic analysis, obsessive drawing burrowing into the psyche or the wide sweep of science and its consequent politics, you had them.

Under these conditions, low - level cloud cover and its reflection of solar radiation increase, despite an increase in global mean surface temperature.

Between a maximum and a minimum of solar activity (or between a minimum and a maximum of GCR flux) there is a variation of 1 % of the mean low cloud cover.

All I have proposed is the possibility that a small (1C or less) increase in global mean temp or a doubling of CO2 concentration will raise the rate of latent heat transport and possibly increase the cloud cover, especially during the hottest time of the year in each region.

Debunking: According to this theory, cosmic rays are responsible for cloud cover — fewer cosmic rays means fewer clouds and less cooling in the summer (clouds reflect the energy) and more heating in the winter (as clouds hold heat in).

The emission laws have removed most of this, reducing cloud cover, meaning the ground loses heat faster.

Note that the difference in the mean is not predictive of the difference in all regions, and while the differences do have noticeable fingerprints in clouds, ice cover etc. the net impact on sensitivity is small (2.6 to 2.7 ºC).

Would it mean latent heat budget, deep / shallow convections, low - medium - high cloud cover are indifferent to the «hot spot» at 200 - 300 hPa?

With «mean climate», surely the model ensemble mean is meant, however the «real data» to base the tuning on by definition is restricted to the single realisation of Earth's climate (including cloud cover caused by, for instance, multi-decadal oscillations instead of AGW feedback).

Suppose for the sake of argument that a 0.2 C increase in mean surface temp, starting with the climate as it is now, produced a 2 % increase in cloud cover, in the conditions that produce lightning strikes.

In winter, cloud cover often provides a blanket meaning less heat escapes from the underlying land.

Specifically, the cloud cover is multiplied by the factor 1 + c T, where T, computed every time step, is the deviation of the global mean surface air temperature from the long - term mean in the model control run at the same point in the seasonal cycle and c is an empirical constant.

A possible 2 % increase in cloud cover following a 1 % increase in mean surface temp has been written about already, but I lack the references to the published instances; I mention them to avoid seeming to claim that the ideas I wrote in the paragraph above originated with me..

«This study examines variability in zonal mean surface - observed upper - level (combined midlevel and high - level) and low - level cloud cover over land during 1971 — 1996 and over ocean during 1952 — 1997.

Part way there, but no quantitation yet: of the 3.77 W / m ^ 2 radiated back dowwnard, most goes to increased rate of evaporation of the water at the surface, and much less goes to increased mean temp increase at the surface; hence increased rate of non-radiative transfer of heat from surface to upper atmosphere, slight increase in rainfall as hydrological cycle is faster, and slight increase in cloud cover.

In Antarctica, the ice that covers the continent has a higher albedo than clouds, so more clouds means warming.

It seems the physical nature of clouds reflecting radiation sould mean «falling cloud cover is causing temperatures to rise?»

Instead of changes in monthly values of Temp and precip (and cloud cover) changes in ANNUAL mean temperature were used to force LPJ.

Then, especially when there is excessive cloud cover over the oceans, the Sun's energy absorbed above the clouds can actually make its way down to the ocean surface (and below) warming the oceans by non-radiative processes, not by direct solar radiation which mostly passes through the thin surface layer and could barely raise the mean temperature of an asphalt paved Earth above -35 C.

Overall, clouds reflect more solar radiation than they trap, leading to a net cooling of ~ 27.7 W / m2 from the mean global cloud cover of ~ 63.3 % [Hartmann, 1993].

Thanks to Perth Metro's colder inland minima getting colder (low rainfall and little nighttime cloud cover), Perth's mean temperature has been stable and even dropped a tiny bit from 1994 to 2010.

We've had some warm weather but precipitation and cloud cover is way up meaning highs were about normal, more 90 degree highs than June 2007 thru June 2010 but again nothing above 93.

The satellite data is at least consistent and reasonably direct, although it is biased, not the mean temperature under cloud cover.

The regions in which monthly means meet the mid-tropospheric dryness criterion frequently broadly correspond to regions with frequent low - cloud cover, both in observations (Fig. 1a) and in climate models.

Their promotional embellishments have also corrupted the meaning of «greenhouse effect,» a term originally relating the loose confinement of warm nighttime air near ground level by cloud cover, to hot air trapped inside a greenhouse,» Kondis explained..

The wide range of studies conducted with the ISCCP datasets and the changing environment for accessing datasets over the Internet suggested the need for the Web site to provide: 1) a larger variety of information about the project and its data products for a much wider variety of users [e.g., people who may not use a particular ISCCP data product but could use some ancillary information (such as the map grid definition, topography, snow and ice cover)-RSB-; 2) more information about the main data products in several different forms (e.g., illustrations of the cloud analysis method) and more flexible access to the full documentation; 3) access to more data summaries and diagnostic statistics to illustrate research possibilities for students, for classroom use by educators, or for users with «simple» climatology questions (e.g., annual and seasonal means); and 4) direct access to the complete data products (e.g., the whole monthly mean cloud dataset is now available online).

More clouds are slowing this process but along with the Sun going into idle, extra clouds, extra sea ice exposed for longer and vast snow cover it must mean only one thing, Global Cooling.

More cloud cover on a net global scale means less solar radiation penetrates the surface, which leads to a net cooling, and less cloud cover means more solar radiation penetrates into the (ocean) surface, which ultimately leads to net warming trend.

I don't think he did anything with cloud height or cloud cover, so I'm confused by your question, but either way the plots reflect monthly global average data with a 12 running mean applied to smooth out the seasonal cycle.

Next, better count only days where there was no cloud cover whatever, since cool and warm often just means there was cloud about to lower maxima and raise minima.

Lastly, there is a latitudinal variation in the cloud cover, such that around 20 ° N there are regions with 0.10 less cloudiness than the global mean.

«(a) Sherwood et al (2014) and Fasullo & Trenberth (2012) show that the most likely value for ECS is about 4.5 degrees C instead of the assumed mean value of 3 degrees C; therefore, you should multiply the old projections by a factor of about 1.5, due to the low amount of cloud cover near the equator.

«Global mean time series of surface - and satellite - observed low - level and total cloud cover exhibit very large discrepancies, however, implying that artifacts exist in one or both data sets... The surface - observed low - level cloud cover time series averaged over the global ocean appears suspicious because it reports a very large 5 % - sky - cover increase between 1952 and 1997.

If the prevailing rain pattern shifts farther to the west, that means the convection, cloud cover and precipitation all shift farther to the west.

According to NASA, mean global cloud cover declined from about 0.677 (67.7 %) in 1983 to about 0.644 (64.4 %) in 2001 or a decline of 0.033 (3.3 %).

This means that outdoor visibility is rough in broad daylight (honestly, you can hardly see the screen unless there's cloud cover), and using your phone in bed isn't the greatest.