Sentences with phrase «planetary energy imbalance»

You should go back and read Planetary Energy Imbalance at RC.

We use CO2 [87] and CH4 [88] data from Antarctic ice cores (figure 5a) to calculate an effective GHG forcing as follows: 5.2 where Fa is the adjusted forcing, i.e. the planetary energy imbalance due to the GHG change after the stratospheric temperature has time to adjust to the gas change.

«The precision achieved by the most advanced generation of radiation budget satellites is indicated by the planetary energy imbalance measured by the ongoing CERES (Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System) instrument (Loeb et al., 2009), which finds a measured 5 - yr - mean imbalance of 6.5 W m − 2 (Loeb et al., 2009).

The resulting average planetary energy imbalance, if it really exists, is only 1 part in 1,000.

We know without a doubt that gases we are adding to the air have caused a planetary energy imbalance and global warming, already 0.8 degrees Celsius since pre-industrial times.

The resulting net planetary energy imbalance for the six years 2005 — 2010 is +0.58 ± 0.15 W / m2.

The resulting planetary energy imbalance, absorbed solar energy exceeding heat emitted to space, causes Earth to warm.

«The inferred planetary energy imbalance, 0.59 \ pm 0.15 W / m2 during the 6 - year period 2005 - 2010, confirms the dominant role of the human - made greenhouse effect in driving global climate change.»

We conclude that background global warming is continuing, consistent with the known planetary energy imbalance, even though it is likely that the slowdown in climate forcing growth rate contributed to the recent apparent standstill in global temperature.

A slower growth rate of the net climate forcing may have contributed to the standstill of global temperature in the past decade, but it can not explain the standstill, because it is known that the planet has been out of energy balance, more energy coming in from the sun than energy being radiated to space.10 The planetary energy imbalance is due largely to the increase of climate forcings in prior decades and the great thermal inertia of the ocean.

The decadal mean planetary energy imbalance, 0.75 W / m2, includes heat storage in the deeper ocean and energy used to melt ice and warm the air and land.

In summary, precipitous decline in the growth rate of GHG forcing about 25 years ago caused a decrease in the rate of growth of the total climate forcing and thus a flattening of the planetary energy imbalance over the past two decades.

That flattening allows the small forcing due to the solar cycle minimum, a delayed bounceback effect from Pinatubo cooling, and recent small volcanoes to cause a decrease of the planetary energy imbalance over the past decade.

However even the moderate scenarios which have eventual stabilisation give more warming than 0.8 C. Even in the extremely unlikely event that there is no further growth in emissions, the current planetary energy imbalance (estimated to be almost 1W / m2)(due to the ocean thermal inertia) implies that there is around 0.5 C extra warming already in the pipeline that will be realised over the next 20 to 30 years.

Given the unusual magnitude of the current planetary energy imbalance and uncertainty about its implications, careful monitoring of key metrics is needed.

No support for the assertions @ 104 are provided by the SkS post which contrary-wise argues that a planetary energy imbalance (and the resulting ΔOHC) can occur when SAT remains flat on decadal timescales.

It is a measure of the consequence of planetary energy imbalance, not the fate of CO2 molecules.

How are these data reconciled with estimates of the planetary energy imbalance from a variety of model sources that are closer to 1.0 w / m ^ 2?

The resulting planetary energy imbalance, absorbed solar energy exceeding heat emitted to space, causes Earth to warm.

The resulting net planetary energy imbalance for the six years 2005 — 2010 is +0.58 ± 0.15 W / m2.

Smaller contributions to planetary energy imbalance are from heat gain by the deeper ocean (+0.10 W / m2), energy used in net melting of ice (+0.05 W / m2), and energy taken up by warming continents (+0.02 W / m2).

As mentioned in the introduction, the satellites which measure incoming and outgoing radiation at the top of Earth's atmosphere (TOA) can not measure the small planetary energy imbalance brought about by global warming.

Sea levels are still rising, ice is still receding, spring is still coming earlier, there's still a planetary energy imbalance, etc. etc..

Not exact matches

Changing the energy imbalance of the planetary system by inhibiting the escape of radiant heat to space WILL result in warming, no matter whether or not you can observe it accurately.

The key points of the paper are that: i) model simulations with 20th century forcings are able to match the surface air temperature record, ii) they also match the measured changes of ocean heat content over the last decade, iii) the implied planetary imbalance (the amount of excess energy the Earth is currently absorbing) which is roughly equal to the ocean heat uptake, is significant and growing, and iv) this implies both that there is significant heating «in the pipeline», and that there is an important lag in the climate's full response to changes in the forcing.

The general argument however is being discussed by rasmus in the context of planetary energy balance: the impact of additional CO2 is to reduce the outgoing longwave radiation term and force the system to accumulate excess energy; the imbalance is currently on the order of 1.45 * (10 ^ 22) Joules / year over the globe, and the temperature must rise allowing the outgoing radiation term to increase until it once again matches the absorbed incoming stellar flux.

A better metric to gauge to real planetary effects of the TOA GHG induced imbalance is of course to combine combine troposphere anomalies with ocean heat content anomalies, as well as cryosphere anomalies, to get a net Earth system energy imbalance.

Global energy imbalance (Fig. 15b) is a more meaningful measure of planetary status as well as an estimate of the climate forcing change required to stabilize climate.

The temporary imbalance between the energy absorbed from the Sun and heat emission to space, causes the planet to warm until planetary energy balance is restored.»

I've tried to make it clear in my previous post that the imbalance of the whole planet is eventually communicated to the surface, and proper considerations of the surface temperature can not be determined without invoking satisfaction of the planetary energy budget (and in fact you can't even complete the discussion of the surface budget without talking about the primary of TOA fluxes).