Sentences with phrase «of change in insolation»

``... climate oscillation around 7500 — 7000 cal BP may have resulted from combined effects of a strong rate of change in insolation and of variations in solar activity.»

Another major climate oscillation around 7500 — 7000 cal BP may have resulted from combined effects of a strong rate of change in insolation and of variations in solar activity.»

Not exact matches

Furthermore, while the deep wind is stable, in the upper atmosphere the speed and width of the equatorial stream are highly changeable, perhaps due to the seasonal insolation cycle on Saturn, and their intensity is increased by the changing shadowing of the rings above the equator.

One explanation is the change in solar insolation, or the amount of the sun's energy that hits the Earth.

On p. 336: 271 Abrupt change from wet to dry in the Sahara (at least, as measured by offshore dust) as the summer sun gradually changes: Peter B. deMenocal, J. Ortiz, T. Guilderson, J. Adkins, M. Sarnthein, L. Baker, and M. Yarusinsky, «Abrupt onset and termination of the African Humid Period: Rapid climate responses to gradual insolation forcing,» Quaternary Science Review 19: 347 - 361 (2000).

The major mid-Holocene forcing relative to the present was due to orbital perturbations that led to large changes in the seasonal cycle of insolation.

Changes in insolation are also thought to have arisen from small variations in solar irradiance, although both timing and magnitude of past solar radiation fluctuations are highly uncertain (see Chapters 2 and 6; Lean et al., 2002; Gray et al., 2005; Foukal et al., 2006).

And perhaps you can explain how tiny changes in insolation in the course of Milankovitch cycles give rise to glacial / interglacial cycles without significant positive feedback.

We know that there were two other factors at play, increasing CO2 and higher insolation, both of which also change the energy balance positively and therefore increase the equilibrium response to the changes in the environment.

Or it may be caused by any other mechanism (like the influence of solar changes on the jet stream position) which enhance the simple direct insolation change which is incorporated in several current climate models...

It's the same series of an initial forcing (change in insolation due to Milankovitch orbital cycles) being amplified by reinforcing feedbacks (change in albedo, change in temperature and partial pressure regulating both CO2 and H2O), but in reverse from an exit from a glacial period.

The temperature anomaly on Earth over the same period is about 10 times larger, hence the suggestion that IF the ACRIM inferred changes in the mean insolation are correct, then the inferred increase in solar radiance would account for about 10 % of the temperature anomaly over the same period.

This changes the albedo of the planet significantly, reducing total insolation and resulting in cooling.

Re 37 Kevin McKinney — actually, orbitally - forced global annual average changes in TOA solar insolation are very small (in the case of Earth) and depend only on variations in eccentricity (setting aside the idea that there is a plane of dust and the plane of the orbit has a significant effect that way — heard the idea awhile ago, not sure there's much to support it?).

These findings are remarkable insofar as they indicate that anthropogenic perturbations of the planetary albedo, such as sulphur emissions and / or land - use changes, or natural variations in insolation and CO2 concentration could trigger abrupt transitions between different monsoon regimes.

Thus the «only 0.6 W / m2» in insolation since the Maunder Minimum, in reality may have been fortified to a difference of several W / m2... While there is no change in solar strength in the past 25 years, the level still is high and the oceans still may not be in equilibrium with the heat inflow...

It doesn't have to be CO2 — in this case it's seasonal insolation changes which cause an expansion of ice cover which cause a change in the planet's overall albedo.

I suspect that solar insolation is a primary driver of snow and ice melt above 60 Deg., even to the point of sublimation due to changes in vapor pressure.

The change in insolation due to orbital changes are significant, of the order of 50 W / m2, or 50 times larger than the change of TSI over the solar cycle.

That the only part of Milankovitch cycle forcing that matters is the changes in NH Summer insolation, ignoring the entire season or the SH and in the process inflating the effect of MS around 20 fold.

It would be worth building on the results that he reports there, for example by looking at seasonal differences, or the perturbation of the insolation caused warming by changes in humidity..

Past and future changes in insolation can be calculated over several millions of years with a high degree of confidence.

We have had lengthy heating phase caused by a spurt of insolation, now we have had a big El Nino, a subsequent shift to La Nina and the resulting warm currents moving up the the Western Pacific, causing warming polar oceans and changes in atmospheric water vapor content.

Intrinsic to the whole scenario is the fact that the surface temperature of a planet with an atmosphere is fixed by mass, gravity and insolation alone so that changes in the composition of the atmosphere can have no effect.

As a result, changes in the position and duration of the seasons on the orbit strongly modulate the latitudinal and seasonal distribution of insolation.

Taken into account with increase in the amount of insolation by reducing particulates, albedo changes, and so on, a couple of K or so might be reasonable.

The summer - winter changes in insolation are much larger than those due to human - induced greenhouse gas changes; the seasonal change is mainly in the visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum while the greenhouse gas forcing is in the infrared; the greenhouse gas influence is global while the seasonal changes are opposite in the two hemispheres; and we have a much longer history of observing the seasonal changes, so a more or less correct prediction can be made empirically, without any physical understanding.

This major oscillation may be related to a non-linear response of the climatic system to the gradual decrease in insolation, in addition to seasonal and inter-hemispherical changes in insolation.

There are Milankovitch cycles of around 21,000, 40,000, 100,000, and 400,000 years — in the 100,000 year cycle involving orbital eccentricities the change in insolation is much smaller than with the 21,000 and 40,000 year cycles.

This theory stipulates that changes in Earth's elliptical orbit around the sun (eccentricity), changes in the direction in which our axis points (precession) and changes in the tilt of the earth itself (obliquity)-- known as Milankovitch Cycles — should contribute to changes in climate because of the different amounts of solar insolation received during these changes.

The current impasse in climate science has arisen because AGW proponents say that simply altering the radiative characteristics of constituent molecules within the atmosphere can result in a change in system equilibrium temperature without any need for an increase in mass, gravity or insolation.

What we know with some certainty about oceans (if data is to be believed) is that the intra-annual change in the insolation effects (suspiciously) high symmetricity in the N. Atlantic's sea surface temperature, cantered on 1st of March and 31st of August.

In turn, temperature change affects atmospheric water vapor as well as the more dynamical components of equator - to - pole insolation and of temperature gradients that vary on timescales of decades to hundreds of years.

Changes in insolation due to the sun's orbital cycles, or Milankovitch cycles, correspond with the recent 100,000 - year cycles of past major ice ages.

But equally important changes in insolation affected the volume of warmer tropical waters that were transported toward the poles.

As Roy Spencer points out, it doesn't take much of a change in cloud cover to account for global warming due to increased insolation * at the ocean surface *.

---- Now you realize that astronomical forcing (so - called Milankovitch) does not provide enough change in solar insolation in and of itself to account for the full temperature swings we see from the bottom of the glacial to the top of the interglacial.

From this post I get the impression the climate scientists measuring the average conditions of weather at discreet time intervals and following the change in the average over time is a very limited approach seeking to identify causes and effects, when we have known for a long time the major inputs in the climate such as insolation, orbital characteristics, evaporation, condensation and etc..

This is similar to the error they make when they claim that greenhouse gases can produce temperature increases 3 - 5 times that of the direct radiative effects of doubling CO2 (through the action of non-linear feedbacks), but deny that small changes in insolation can produce effects that are much larger than can predicted from the original forcing.

What is left is that insolation, in the morning, with no change in temperature, is continuously converting airborne water colloid to WV at the rate of 2400 W / g (m ²); with continuous reversion back to airborne water colloid releasing that same 2400 W / g (m ²) to space via EMR in the nighttime.

However, the change in incoming solar radiation — insolation — at this timescale is small, and therefore difficult to reconcile with the amplitude of the glacial cycles.

279 Abrupt change from wet to dry in the Sahara (at least, as measured by offshore dust) as the axial tilt gradually changes: Peter B. deMenocal, J. Ortiz, T. Guilderson, J. Adkins, M. Sarnthein, L. Baker, and M. Yarusinsky, «Abrupt onset and termination of the African Humid Period: Rapid climate responses to gradual insolation forcing,» Quaternary Science Review 19: 347 - 361 (2000).

«his refusal to calculate a total year energy balance» - At this stage, no such calculation can be made, because I have calculated in detail only the changes in the incoming energy (the insolation) as a function of time - of - year and latitude; I have estimated also the effect upon the insolation absorption through a change in the Arctic albedo.

As I made clear in my «essay», my reason for comparing the natural changing insolation values (in W / m2) against the IPCC net AGW figures (the AGW «forcing») is simply this: is the insolation change significant, or is it a value only one part in a million of the IPC AGW value?

The correct way to caclulate the actual forcing from a given albedo model would be to take the difference between the model with unchanged insolation and that with changed insolation, rather than treating it all as being a consequence of the drift in seasonal insolation.

Note also that I have appealed to all to inform me of any publications, anywhere, in which the same sorts of insolation change calculations as I have performed are described; that is, I am admitting ignorance of any such work having been done, and asking for help.

Yes, of course the net effect (i.e. the summed change in insolation) is very near to zero.

This insolation change appears to have been hitherto missed in all reports and papers I have read, and you will not find mention of it in the IPCC reports.

It is noteworthy that, as I discuss in my essay, essentially the only parameters needed in order to derive a good - enough calculation of the insolation changes are the lengths of the mean tropical year and the anomalistic year.

In the case of the 100 kyr ice age cycles, that forcing is high northern latitude summer insolation driven by predictable changes in Earth's orbital and rotational parameters — aka, Milankovitch theory — which has the intial effect of melting glaciers, thereby reducing albedo at those latitudeIn the case of the 100 kyr ice age cycles, that forcing is high northern latitude summer insolation driven by predictable changes in Earth's orbital and rotational parameters — aka, Milankovitch theory — which has the intial effect of melting glaciers, thereby reducing albedo at those latitudein Earth's orbital and rotational parameters — aka, Milankovitch theory — which has the intial effect of melting glaciers, thereby reducing albedo at those latitudes.