Sentences with phrase «net mean surface»

Not exact matches

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.

By using measurements collected from the U.S. DOE ARM's SGP sites and other available sources, this study shows that all participating models simulate excessive net shortwave and longwave fluxes at the surface, but with no consistent mean bias sign in turbulent fluxes over the Central U.S. and SGP.

The scans which have surfaced on the net are meant to be from the next issue of Edge magazine and you can find the scans, courtesy of allgamesbeta.info by clicking here.

This means that, e.g., if heat moves from the tropical surface water (temp about 25C) to surface waters at lower temps, the net effect is a subsidence of sea level — even without any change in total heat content.

This means that there is an upward surface flux of LW around (~ 390 W / m2), while the outward flux at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) is roughly equivalent to the net solar radiation coming in (1 - a) S / 4 (~ 240 W / m2).

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.

What I mean is simply that we have as much actual empirical evidence for the existence of even one unicorn in this world as we have for the basic AGW claim that more CO2 in the atmosphere can, will and does cause a net rise in Earth's average global surface temperature, i.e. NONE whatsoever!

«the tendency to a radiative equilibrium means that the emitter with the higher surface temperature will loose energy due to a negative net radiation balance until this net radiation balance becomes zero.»

It clearly states that (a) emission of energy by radiation is accompanied with cooling of the surface (if no compensating changes prevent it), and (b) the tendency to a radiative equilibrium means that the emitter with the higher surface temperature will loose energy due to a negative net radiation balance until this net radiation balance becomes zero.

In contrast, closure of the global ocean mean net surface heat flux budget to within 20 W m — 2 from observation based surface flux data sets has still not been reliably achieved (e.g., Trenberth et al., 2009).

Relationships between the change in net top - of - atmosphere radiative flux, N, and global - mean surface - air - temperature change, ΔT, after an instantaneous quadrupling of CO2.

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.

«The global mean climate responses to different forcings may differ because of the character of the forcings themselves (such as their geographical or vertical distribution) and because different forcings induce different patterns of surface warming or cooling, thereby affecting the net top - of - atmosphere radiation imbalance, and thus the ocean heat uptake rate.»

Because of the low heat capacity of the atmosphere, this means that the TOA imbalance must soon match the net surface flux lest the atmosphere becomes extremely hot.

Rather, Y is the slope coefficient for an (approximately) linear dependence of net radiative balance N, minus the change in forcings Q, on changes deltaT in mean surface temperature.

«in an isotropic non GHG world, the net would be zero, as the mean conduction flux would equalize, but in our earth it is still nearly zero» if the atmosphere were isothermal at the same temperature as the surface then exactly the downwelling radiation absorbed by the surface would be equal to the radiation of th surface absorbed by the air (or rather by its trace gases) and both numbers would be (1 - 2E3 (t (nu)-RRB--RRB- pi B (nu, T) where t (nu) is the optical thickness, B the Planck function, nu the optical frequency and T the temperature; as the flow from the air absorbed by the surface is equal to the flow from the surface absorbed by the air, the radiative heat transfer is zero between surface and air.

However, even though surface temperatures of land and ocean may experience feedback effects, there are few possible feedbacks posited for the level of the atmosphere where the net radiation to space takes place, and this means that the 1.2 degrees C heating effect must be absorbed within the boundaries of the atmosphere somewhere.

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.

Don't start with «evaporation is always a net cooling process» because all that means is that the ocean surface is cooler than it would otherwise be if there was no evaporation.

Without atmosphere the surface of the ocean or land would lose o (T ^ 4 — Ts ^ 4)(1) where Ts is the temperature of the space (about 4K) while in the presence of the atmosphere the heat losses are hc * (T — Tl)(2) and o (T ^ 4 — Tl ^ 4)(3) where (2) represents the heat transfer by convection (inclusive conduction) through the air layer and (3) corresponds to the net flow due to the heat exchange by radiation, Tl being the mean temperature of the air layer.

So, if we took out the effects of both volcanoes, the change in mean global surface temperatures between the two decades would have been about 0.015 K (2 %) higher, and the increase in the change in -LCB- forcing net of OHU -RCB- would have been about 0.03 W / m ^ 2 (also 2 %) higher.

Maps of the long - term monthly and annual means of the net surface energy flux together with the four components of the total flux (latent heat flux, sensible heat flux, incoming radiation, and outgoing radiation) for the global oceans are presented.

This means he overestimated solar energy entering the lower Venusian atmosphere by a factor of about 7 so came to the conclusion that he could assume NET surface IR was much greater than reality and imagined it, rather than gravity, causes lapse rate warming.

The 2008 K&T cartoon gives a NET upward radiation flux from the surface of 33w / m2 with a downward adjustment to water vapour to 76w / m2 and conduction to 16w / m2 but the point holds; that point is more net heat is leaving the surface through methods other than radiation, particularly water; that to me means 2 things; water is a dominant mover of heat compared to CO2 and the sun's 168/166 w / m2 is a far more dominant heater than CO2 backradiatiNET upward radiation flux from the surface of 33w / m2 with a downward adjustment to water vapour to 76w / m2 and conduction to 16w / m2 but the point holds; that point is more net heat is leaving the surface through methods other than radiation, particularly water; that to me means 2 things; water is a dominant mover of heat compared to CO2 and the sun's 168/166 w / m2 is a far more dominant heater than CO2 backradiatinet heat is leaving the surface through methods other than radiation, particularly water; that to me means 2 things; water is a dominant mover of heat compared to CO2 and the sun's 168/166 w / m2 is a far more dominant heater than CO2 backradiation.

Values are shown for the effective climate sensitivity, the net heat flux across the ocean surface multiplied by the ocean fraction and the global mean temperature change (TCR).

The top left panel shows the TOA energy balance for the first stasis period 2048 — 2058 for the net radiation (R T), along with the global mean surface temperature perturbation.