Sentences with phrase «radiative imbalance of»

A radiative imbalance of 0.6 W m - 2 over 2000 - 2010 means that CO2 only caused 33 % (0.2 of 0.6 W m - 2) of the radiative forcing for that period.

The total radiative imbalance of 5.332 W / m2 for a doubling of CO2 for a tropical atmosphere is a large imbalance.

That would imply a radiative imbalance of at least -10 W / m2 or an albedo of 0.27 compared to the usual 0.30 Given that OHC over 60 years is up, indicating a positive imbalance, how do you reconcile this?

The mismatch between the data and the model predictions, however, raises serious questions on the ability of the multi-decadal global climate models to accurately predict even the global average variability and long term trend of the radiative imbalance of the climate system.

«The recent dramatic cooling of the average heat content of the upper oceans, and thus a significant negative radiative imbalance of the climate system for at least a two year period, that was mentioned in the Climate Science weblog posting of July 27, 2006, should be a wake - up call to the climate community that the focus on predictive modeling as the framework to communicate to policymakers on climate policy has serious issues as to its ability to accurately predict the behavior of the climate system.

Thus, the change in ocean heat storage with time can be used to calculate the net radiative imbalance of the Earth (Ellis et al., 1978; Piexoto and Oort, 1992).

But oceans, soaking up heat from radiative imbalance of the earth, can periodically release heat to the biosphere.

Most radiative transfer calculations (and the IPCC) give that x2 CO2 is equivalent to a radiative imbalance of about 3.8 W / m ^ 2.

Thus, it can be concluded that the observed 15 - year trend in radiative imbalance of the tropics is probably a signature of natural rather than anthropogenic climate variations.

Observationally, we are currently arguing [in fact in a war] about a possible radiative imbalance of approx.

Aside from the fact that there's no physical support from such a picture, this state of affairs is highly unlikely because you'd still have to account for things like the way the system responds to CO2 at the LGM, the observed radiative imbalance of the planet at present, the observed penetration of heat into the upper ocean, and so forth.

Does this result allow you to get a meaningful estimate of the radiative imbalance of the earth?

However, much of the warming in the next 50 years will be from presently «unrealized warming» caused by the existing planetary radiative imbalance of at least 0.5 W / m2 (8, 37).

Aside from the fact that there's no physical support from such a picture, this state of affairs is highly unlikely because you'd still have to account for things like the way the system responds to CO2 at the LGM, the observed radiative imbalance of the planet at present, the observed penetration of heat into the upper ocean, and so forth.

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.

We can estimate this independently using the changes in ocean heat content over the last decade or so (roughly equal to the current radiative imbalance) of ~ 0.7 W / m2, implying that this «unrealised» forcing will lead to another 0.7 × 0.75 ºC — i.e. 0.5 ºC.

If you doubled CO2 and let the system come into equilibrium, the imbalance you'd measure from space would be zero — but there would still be about 4 W / m ** 2 of radiative forcing from the change in CO2.

That's far from the worst flaw in his calculation, since his two biggest blunders are the neglect of the radiative cooling due to sulfate aerosols (known to be a critical factor in the period in question) and his neglect of the many links in the chain of physical effects needed to translate a top of atmosphere radiative imbalance to a change in net surface energy flux imbalance.

The surface temperature change is proportional to the sensitivity and radiative forcing (in W m - 2), regardless of the source of the energy imbalance.

Some of the resulting radiative imbalance has been offset by increased OLR from warming.

We can not count on the heat from the continuing radiative imbalance continuing to go into the deeps (once again, uncertainty cuts both ways), nor even that all of the heat sequestered there will stay there.

However, practices differ significantly on some key aspects, in particular, in the use of initialized forecast analyses as a tool, the explicit use of the historical transient record, and the use of the present day radiative imbalance vs. the implied balance in the pre-industrial as a target.»

Despite the difficulties of calibration that makes an absolute radiative imbalance measurement impossible — the anomalies data contains essential information on climate variability that can be used to understand and close out the global energy budget — changes in which are largely OHC.

The problem is that the rate of emissions has no direct effect on temperature; it is the accumulated level in the atmosphere that creates a radiative imbalance that causes temperature to rise.

Seeing that applying a substantial fraction of a watt in radiative imbalance to every last square meter of the world will heat it up does not require a MODTRAN calculation.

But there are solid physical reasons to expect acceleration — the radiative imbalance is growing along with the concentrations of GHGs; we are shedding reflective ice from the cryosphere; our warming atmosphere is holding more water vapor, a potent GHG; and we are melting permafrost and frozen soils to release methane.

If we knew ocean heat uptake as well as we know atmospheric temperature change, then we could pin down fairly well the radiative imbalance at the top of the atmosphere, which would give us a fair indication of how much warming is «in the pipeline» given current greenhouse gas concentrations.

Alternatively, more direct observations of that radiative imbalance would be nice, or better theoretical and observational understanding of the water vapor and cloud feedbacks, or more paleoclimate data which can give us constraints on historical feedbacks, but my guess is that ocean heat content measurements would be the best near term bet for improving our understanding of this issue.

Thus, heat absorbed by the oceans accounts for almost all of the planet's radiative imbalance.

Because we understand the energy balance of our Earth, we also know that global warming is caused by greenhouse gases — which have caused the largest imbalance in the radiative energy budget over the last century.

[Radiative forcing is the amount of imbalance between energy reaching the Earth and radiating into 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.

(The difference between zero and non-zero heat capacity responses is proportional to a radiative imbalance, which is proportional to the rate of change in enthalpy and thus temperature, barring a change in where the heat is going, etc..)

Given those assumptions, looking at the forcing over a long - enough multi-decadal period and seeing the temperature response gives an estimate of the transient climate response (TCR) and, additionally if an estimate of the ocean heat content change is incorporated (which is a measure of the unrealised radiative imbalance), the ECS can be estimated too.

It is double speak for a climate scientist to assert (correctly I might add) that natural variability like ENSO will alter the TOA radiative imbalance through changes in clouds, humidity, evaporation, rainfall, ect., but then out of the other side of the mouth imply that natural variability doesn't really matter to the multi-decadal projections.

Empirical evidence, measurements of the radiative imbalance by satellites, confirms this to be occurring.

The Levitus and Pielke papers show that averaged out for these types of time intervals (> 1 year), this analysis provides a snapshot of the net radiative imbalance at the top of the atmosphere.

Here we analyse twenty - first - century climate - model simulations that maintain a consistent radiative imbalance at the top - of - atmosphere of about 1 W m − 2 as observed for the past decade.

Starting from an old equilbrium, a change in radiative forcing results in a radiative imbalance, which results in energy accumulation or depletion, which causes a temperature response that approahes equilibrium when the remaining imbalance approaches zero — thus the equilibrium climatic response, in the global - time average (for a time period long enough to characterize the climatic state, including externally imposed cycles (day, year) and internal variability), causes an opposite change in radiative fluxes (via Planck function)(plus convective fluxes, etc, where they occur) equal in magnitude to the sum of the (externally) imposed forcing plus any «forcings» caused by non-Planck feedbacks (in particular, climate - dependent changes in optical properties, + etc.).)

In this case the CO2 concentration is instantaneously quadrupled and kept constant for 150 years of simulation, and both equilibrium climate sensitivity and RF are diagnosed from a linear fit of perturbations in global mean surface temperature to the instantaneous radiative imbalance at the TOA.

On a larger point, the radiative imbalance in the AR4 models is a function of how effectively the oceans sequester heat (more mixing down implies a greater imbalance) as well as what the forcings are.

If you can't keep up with annual - decadal changes in the TOA radiative imbalance or ocean heat content (because of failure to correctly model changes in the atmosphere and ocean due to natural variability), then your climate model lacks fidelity to the real world system it is tasked to represent.

Do you imagine that the flow of warm water into the Arctic is not due to global radiative imbalance caused by CO2?

Using TOA radiative imbalances instead of ocean heat uptake (which can not be directly observed with sufficient precision) would be pointless.

Estimate of radiative relaxation time — for small perturbations, using a linearized approximation, wherein imbalances decay exponentially:

How can this actual radiative imbalance be negative, even for these short (2 year) periods of time?

So, for extra credit, how much does cloudiness increase as a result of the increase in convection, and how much does * that * additionally detract from the original 1Â ° C increase due to radiative imbalance?

So if BNO can not exist powered by a store of energy BNO (S), or powered by a radiative imbalance BNO (R), how can it exist?

How can Wien's law require more energy - out be generated but the only source of energy for global warming (except the solar) is by reducing the energy - out to create an energy imbalance to create the radiative warming.

And because of their on / off nature, the radiative imbalance engendrered by such wobbling should be more noticeable.