Sentences with phrase «radiation imbalance of»

As the dominant reservoir for heat, the oceans are critical for measuring the radiation imbalance of the planet and the surface layer of the oceans plays the role of thermostat and heat source / sink for the lower 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).

Not exact matches

The researchers [3] quantified China's current contribution to global «radiative forcing» (the imbalance, of human origin, of our planet's radiation budget), by differentiating between the contributions of long - life greenhouse gases, the ozone and its precursors, as well as aerosols.

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.

Thus continued precise monitoring of Earth's radiation imbalance is probably the best way to assess and adjust the appropriate CO2 target.

When conventional medicine turns its attention to hormonal imbalance, nutrition and the effects of xenoestrogens, progress in the prevention and treatment of breast cancer is far more likely than it is if we continue on with our present fixation on mammograms, surgery, chemotherapy and radiation.

'' Global climate change results from a small yet persistent imbalance between the amount of sunlight absorbed by Earth and the thermal radiation emitted back to space1.

«When we measure globally and deep enough, we see a steady rise in the earth's heat content, consistent with the expected greenhouse gas - driven imbalance in our planet's radiation budget,» said study co-author Susan Wijffels of Australian research agency the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO).

After all, most of the excess energy from any radiation imbalance will wind up in the oceans, and the top layers are undoubtedly getting warmer.

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

The imbalance is not between IR absorbed and IR emitted by a layer of atmosphere, but between the incoming shortwave solar energy from space and the outgoing longwave energy emitted to space, due to the increasing difference between the ground temperature and the temperature of the level from which re-emitted radiation can escape to space.

Some of that would result also in a change in the radiation to space, and in particular a change in the net top of atmosphere radiative imbalance.

I think the central point is that of the scale of energy imbalance and the timescale for response: our addition of CO2 reduces outgoing thermal radiation, so incoming energy from the sun is greater than outgoing energy to space.

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.

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

Since the heat capacity of the land surface is so small compared to the ocean, any significant imbalance in the planetary radiation budget (the solar in minus the longwave out) must end up increasing the heat content in the ocean.

Changes in temperature cause changes in emission of radiation, so that as the temperature changes in response to an energy flow imbalance, the imbalance tends to decay toward zero as equilibrium is approached.

In the most extreme case, you can draw a horizontal line in a plane of outgoing radiation vs. surface temperature, and you can actually have a sustained imbalance while surface temperature rises without bound.

Surface temperature is an imperfect gauge of whether the earth has been warmed by an imbalance between incoming radiation from the sun, and outgoing radiation, because of the role of ocean currents in the distribution of heat between deeper and surface waters.

The point made in the skeptical science article is that there is good quantitative agreement between ocean heating and satellite measurements of the radiation imbalance which is what one would expect to see.

The imbalance between the absorbed and emitted radiation that results from these changes will be referred to here as «climate forcing» (sometimes known as «radiative forcing») and given in units of Wm - 2.

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

From experimental evidence we know that the absorptivity of a body is not affected by the amount of incident radiation, or by any imbalance between the body and its environment.

However, from experimental evidence we know that emissivity of a body is not affected by the incident radiation, or by any conditions of imbalance that occur between the body and its environment.

The no - feedback climate senstiivity of about 1 C for a doubling of CO2 is based on the assumption that this imbalance can only be countered by a change in the radiation component of how energy is transmitted through the atmopshere.

3) In the examination of the model for the GHE above, the initial radiation balance, plus the adiabatic - lapse rate, is what has set the structure of the temperature profile; and then the addition of more GHG to the temperature field causes a radiative imbalance that changes the temperature profile until the imbalance goes away.

If something occurs to cause an imbalance between incoming and outgoing radiation, then you can't, as a matter of principle, say that the system will change to maintain radiative balance, it depends on the system.

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.

Douglas and Knox show some correlations between Top - of - atmosphere radiation imbalance and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO).

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

The thermal radiation exchange has a slight imbalance towards the top of the box and the kinetic energy exchange, from the top of the box, thru the gas and to the bottom of the box, has an equally small imbalance towards the bottom of the box.

«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.»

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.

Thus, long - term variations of TSI (with account for their direct and secondary, based on feedback effects, influence) are the main fundamental cause of climate changes since variations of the Earth climate is mainly determined by a long - term imbalance between the energy of solar radiation entering the upper layers of the Earth's atmosphere and the total energy emitted from the Earth back to space.»

[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.

We know that 93 % or so of the radiation imbalance from global warming is going into the oceans anyhow, so it should be obvious from that the ocean is largely a cooling source.

Current climate change is largely an aggregate effect; it depends mostly on the time integral of radiation imbalance, due to the large thermal inertia of the system.

All absorbed radiation must be returned to space, except for very minor imbalances (e.g., of the order of currently estimated 0.9 W / ^ 2) during forcing by CO2, solar changes, aerosols, or other climate drivers.

If Earth's mean energy imbalance today is +0.5 W / m2, CO2 must be reduced from the current level of 395 ppm (global - mean annual - mean in mid-2013) to about 360 ppm to increase Earth's heat radiation to space by 0.5 W / m2 and restore energy balance.

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.

Today Earth is out of balance because increasing atmospheric gases such as CO2 reduce Earth's heat radiation to space, thus causing an energy imbalance, as there is less energy going out than coming in.

«Our results demonstrate how synergistic use of satellite TOA radiation observations and recently improved ocean heat content measurements, with appropriate error estimates, provide critical data for quantifying short - term and longer - term changes in the Earth's net TOA radiation imbalance.

The increased radiation is stronger, and the resultant energy imbalances through the stratosphere tend to change the temperature gradient and also to cool the stratosphere generally, raising the height of the top of the tropopause.

Cloud cover changes are significant determinants of the Earth's top - of - atmosphere (TOA) radiation imbalance, or how much solar radiative forcing is absorbed by the Earth's surface (oceans).

«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 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 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.»

It is claimed by Schmidt and others that they use top of atmosphere radiation imbalance to tune and presumably some other parameters where good data is available.

With increasing carbon dioxide and other heat - trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, there is an imbalance in energy flows in and out of the top - of - atmosphere: the greenhouse gases increasingly trap more radiation and hence create warming.

Also: «The radiation imbalance in the 21st Century with observed SST must be positive with a target range of 0.5 to 1 W m2».