Sentences with phrase «radiation imbalance at»

Now the radiation imbalance at the top of the real atmosphere is not really a driver of anything, so much as a consequence of what is going on below and coming in from above, and of course there are other problems with the method which are well known (e.g. can all the forcings be just added up to find a net one, do some of them interact, are some of them heterogeneuous in space).

The limitations of OLS on data with a near unit root is well taken, but to claim that the temperature just changes stochastically, within bounds that are very far off what one would expect just from natural variability, is not convincing: Many parameters of the earth system are simultaneously showing signs of warming, plus there's still a positive radiation imbalance at the top of the atmosphere: The earth hasn't even warmed up yet to the full extent that the change in forcing implies.

BTW, with the radiation imbalance at 0.5 + / - a touch, the entire increase of CO2 forcing per doubling at 1 % of total, second and third order effect are a real possibility.

The radiation imbalance at the surface following a step change of CO2 is actually quite small.

Not exact matches

This so - called constant - composition commitment results as temperatures gradually equilibrate with the current atmospheric radiation imbalance, and has been estimated at between 0.3 °C and 0.9 °C warming over the next century.»

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.

The reason why there is «warming in the pipeline» is because there is a significant imbalance in radiation at the top of the atmosphere.

Looking at the surface temperature and the ocean heat content changes together though allows us to pin down the total unrealised forcing (the net radiation imbalance) and demonstrate that the models are consistent with both the surface and ocean changes.

While they are changing, there will be a «radiation imbalance» at the top of the atmosphere.

Add in the current radiation imbalance of ~ 1 W / m2, you have at least 1.5 deg C surface warming to come (assuming a canonical 0.75 C / W / m2 sensitivity).

This much is true, and the only way that this imbalance will be eliminated will be for the Earth to heat up sufficiently that the rate at which thermal radiation is emitted will compensate for the increased opacity of the atmosphere to thermal radiation.

GHGs slow the release of Outgoing Long wave radiation («OLR»), allegedly reflected in the energy imbalance at the top of atmosphere.

The IPCC model suggests that the heat and latent energy exchange between the underlying surface and the atmosphere is a direct response to the imbalance of solar energy and terrestrial radiation at the surface.

[NB: To avoid the vexing issue of the effects of the down - welling infrared radiation, it is easiest to think of long - term zero energy imbalance, as measured by satellites at the top of the atmosphere — after the underlying atmosphere adjusts.

«It is implausible that changes in the angular distribution of radiation could be modeled to the needed accuracy, and the objective is to measure the imbalance, not guess at it.

The SST of the periode mentioned as tuning parameter seems to be much more plausibely than the TOA - imbalance which is not directly observable at all also with the sofisticatest recent technonolgies, see http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JAMC-D-16-0406.1 «Uncertainties in absolute calibration and the algorithms used to determine Earth's radiation budget from satellite measurements are too large to enable Earth's energy imbalance to be quantified in an absolute sense.»