Sentences with phrase «mean surface forcing»

Not exact matches

«Interestingly, it has very weak Van der Waals forces, meaning it doesn't react with anything vertically, which makes graphene's surface very slippery.»

This would mean that the friction force between the ball and surface would be forward, which would actually make the ball go faster after the bounce.

Aerosols (soot) keep much of the sun's energy from reaching the surface, which means the monsoon doesn't get going with the same force and takes longer to gather up a head of steam.

This sustained contact means that the μTUM design can take advantage of the constant adhesion and frictional forces between itself and the surface below it to climb steep inclined terrains.»

One could assume that there was minimal global mean surface temperature change between 1750 and 1850, as some datasets suggest, and compare the 1850 - 2000 temperature change with the full 1750 - 2000 forcing estimate, as in my paper and Otto et al..

Given that we're mainly looking at the global mean surface temperature anomaly, the most appropriate comparison is for the net forcings for each scenario.

The East Pacific Ocean (90S - 90N, 180 - 80W) has not warmed since the start of the satellite - based Reynolds OI.v2 sea surface temperature dataset, yet the multi-model mean of the CMIP3 (IPCC AR4) and CMIP5 (IPCC AR5) simulations of sea surface temperatures say, if they were warmed by anthropogenic forcings, they should have warmed approximately 0.42 to 0.44 deg C.

He then uses what information is available to quantify (in Watts per square meter) what radiative terms drive that temperature change (for the LGM this is primarily increased surface albedo from more ice / snow cover, and also changes in greenhouse gases... the former is treated as a forcing, not a feedback; also, the orbital variations which technically drive the process are rather small in the global mean).

Abstract:» The sensitivity of global climate with respect to forcing is generally described in terms of the global climate feedback — the global radiative response per degree of global annual mean surface temperature change.

This makes him come off as a bit of an emo Darth Vader on the surface (that was the line when The Force Awakens was released, at least), but Driver brings so many layers and shades of meaning into his portrayal that turns it into so much more than that.

Hit the middle pedal and you'll find it barely moves under the force, but the stopping power feels immense, and although the Sagaris will tramline on bumpy surfaces it's by no means unruly.

When the traction control function is operational, as the vehicle's wheels tend to spin faster than the other on a straight surface, meaning not during a turn, then the anti lock brake system will apply braking force to the wheel that is not in full contact with the flat surface.

On slipperier surfaces, the lack of feedback through the variable electric steering rack means you are never quite sure if the front - end is going to bite, and there appears to be less traction on offer than the standard car, likely due to that big increase in front end stiffness; it will even spin up an inside front wheel on wet tarmac, which is quite a feat given the lack of accelerative force.

When they are declawed, they are forced to bear weight on the cartilage that was meant to shield joint space, and could be why cats would choose to urinate in a soft surface like a carpet instead of a rocky gravel like a litter box.

An addition of triggers to the shoulder buttons a la Nintendo's Switch (and the Vita trigger grip accessory), microSD cards (non proprietary memory), direct connection to TV's (whether HDMI, Screen Cast, both or by other means), clickable analog sticks, better connectivity with the PS4, and future proofing for any other PlayStation console that might surface in a few years, could make the new handheld a force to be reckoned with.

On the other hand, photographs which emphasize materiality, as much of Heinecken's work did, force the viewer to address not only the narrative subject but the means and matter comprising the photograph, its matte or glossy surface, its sharp or fuzzy or grainless texture, its relative size and shape, how it is put on the wall, if it's even on the wall.

The surface temperature increase that partially gave rise to concerns about global warming coincided with a move to tethered electronic measuring devices (um, I think that means thermometers) that forced the movement of many stations closer to buildings and developed areas, causing warming that may not have been corrected for.

... Polar amplification explains in part why Greenland Ice Sheet and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet appear to be highly sensitive to relatively small increases in CO2 concentration and global mean temperature... Polar amplification occurs if the magnitude of zonally averaged surface temperature change at high latitudes exceeds the globally averaged temperature change, in response to climate forcings and on time scales greater than the annual cycle.

Actually, for attribution studies you need to go beyond the global mean surface temperature and see how the resultant forcings leave their fingerprint in both time and space.

Abstract:» The sensitivity of global climate with respect to forcing is generally described in terms of the global climate feedback — the global radiative response per degree of global annual mean surface temperature change.

I have always understood this to be a forcing acting on the surface, so the current +1.6 W / M ^ 2 means that there is effectively an additional 1.6 W / M ^ 2 of down radiation at the earth's surface.

Of course I've seen the often used IPCC TAR result here showing that modelling results combining natural and anthropogenic forcings reproduce 20th century global mean surface temperature anomalies relative to the 1880 to 1920 mean.

Given that we're mainly looking at the global mean surface temperature anomaly, the most appropriate comparison is for the net forcings for each scenario.

Since the projected surface forcing changes come from a climate model (s) the underlying assumption is that the important ice - ocean feedbacks are captured in the superimposed forcing changes, so it really isn't an independent test and not meant to be a substitute for a coupled model.

«Radiative forcing [RF] can be related through a linear relationship to the global mean equilibrium temperature change at the surface (delta Ts): delta Ts = lambda * RF, where lambda is the climate sensitivity parameter (e.g., Ramaswamy et al., 2001).

Although these climate forcings may not alter the global mean surface temperture, they are first order climate forcings in terms of their substantial role in influencing the climate system including the planetary atmospheric circulation.

We also know that the best definition of the forcing is the change in flux at the tropopause, and that the most predictable diagnostic is the global mean surface temperature anomaly.

Actually, we're using the term climate sensitivity in the same sense, the equilibrium response of mean temp to the surface radiative forcing associated with CO2 doubling.

The term «climate sensitivity» refers to the steady - state increase in the global annual mean surface air temperature associated with a given global mean radiative forcing.

The climate sensitivity is defined as the equilibrated change in global mean surface air temperature (SAT) for a given change in radiative forcing and has been a major focus of climate research over the last three decades.

• Greenhouse gases contributed a global mean surface warming likely to be in the range of 0.5 °C to 1.3 °C over the period 1951 to 2010, with the contributions from other anthropogenic forcings, including the cooling effect of aerosols, likely to be in the range of − 0.6 °C to 0.1 °C.

If he means from latitude 70N (he doesn't say) at 6 % of Earth surface that would be +0.20 w / m ** 2 of aerosol forcing which I would have thought deserved its own line because of its contrary effect to aerosols elsewhere.

By comparing modelled and observed changes in such indices, which include the global mean surface temperature, the land - ocean temperature contrast, the temperature contrast between the NH and SH, the mean magnitude of the annual cycle in temperature over land and the mean meridional temperature gradient in the NH mid-latitudes, Braganza et al. (2004) estimate that anthropogenic forcing accounts for almost all of the warming observed between 1946 and 1995 whereas warming between 1896 and 1945 is explained by a combination of anthropogenic and natural forcing and internal variability.

This is in contrast to externally forced variability in global mean surface temperature which arises due to changes in atmospheric greenhouse gasses, aerosols, solar irradiance, ect.

«Radiative forcing can be related through a linear relationship to the global mean equilibrium temperature change at the surface (ΔTs): ΔTs = λ RF, where λ is the climate sensitivity parameter (e.g., Ramaswamy et al., 2001).»

Greenhouse gases contributed a global mean surface warming likely to be in the range of 0.5 °C to 1.3 °C over the period 1951 − 2010, with the contributions from other anthropogenic forcings, including the cooling effect of aerosols, likely to be in the range of − 0.6 °C to 0.1 °C.

One line of argument seems to be that a very slow exchange between surface and deep ocean means that the response of the surface layer to additional forcing will be rather rapid since deep diffusion is slow.

m (that's the computer - predicted radiative forcing on a doubling of atmospheric CO2) is only enough to increase the mean global surface temperature by 0.68 degC at a baseline temperature of 288K according to the Stefan - Boltzmann law.

Since BBD is convinced that delayed responses to forcing on the order of 500 years can have no significant impact on «global mean surface temperature», pearls before swine pops into my head.

Jim you've agreed with me that ««Without having good information about the nature and strength of the various forcings, and using only the mean surface temperature indices, it's not possible to identify or rule out a CO2 signal.»

Even the standard radiative GHG effect of 33 or something K is on very shaky ground, i mean the explanation for higher than black - body temperature of the surface (the average) using only radiative «forcing».

oneuniverse, you write «Without having good information about the nature and strength of the various forcings, and using only the mean surface temperature indices, it's not possible to identify or rule out a CO2 signal.»

Without having good information about the nature and strength of the various forcings, and using only the mean surface temperature indices, it's not possible to identify or rule out a CO2 signal.

Use it for LW and increased «Forcing» REDUCES net surface IR flux (the vector sum of irradiances), meaning temperature has to rise to keep convection plus radiation constant.

You write: «If internal variability (such a a cool PDO phase) reduces the rate of increase of surface temperature, while the e [x] ternal forcing still is increasing, this means the radiative imbalance is impeded from being cancelled by surface warming.»

If internal variability (such a a cool PDO phase) reduces the rate of increase of surface temperature, while the eternal forcing still is increasing, this means the radiative imbalance is impeded from being cancelled by surface warming.

[Equilibrium] climate sensitivity is defined as the increase in global mean surface temperature (GMST), once the ocean has reached equilibrium, resulting from a doubling of the equivalent atmospheric CO2 concentration, being the concentration of CO2 that would cause the same radiative forcing as the given mixture of CO2 and other forcing components.

In the Comment by Nuccitelli et al., they make many false and invalid criticisms of the CFC - warming theory in my recent paper, and claim that their anthropogenic forcings including CO2 would provide a better explanation of the observed global mean surface temperature (GMST) data over the past 50 years.

Surface temperatures across the Arctic are increasing at nearly twice the rate of the global mean in response to natural and forced climate change [1], known as «Arctic Amplification».

It is further noted that GM strength has good relational coherence with the temperature difference between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and that on centennial time scales the GM strength responds more directly to the effective solar forcing than the concurrent forced response in global - mean surface temperature.