Sentences with phrase «solar constant increases»

Not exact matches

Simulations including an increased solar activity over the last century give a CO2 initiated warming of 0.2 ˚C and a solar influence of 0.54 ˚C over this period, corresponding to a CO2 climate sensitivity of 0.6 ˚C (doubling of CO2) and a solar sensitivity of 0.5 ˚C (0.1 % increase of the solar constant).

Simulations including an increased solar activity over the last century give a CO2 initiated warming of 0.2 ˚C and a solar influence of 0.54 ˚C over this period, corresponding to a CO2 climate sensitivity of 0.6 ˚C (doubling of CO2) and a solar sensitivity of 0.5 ˚C (0.1 % increase of the solar constant).

A globally warm medieval period could be a simple forced response to increased solar, in which case it doesn't imply any larger intrinsic variability than already assumed, and since solar has been pretty much constant over the last 50 years, improvements to our understanding of solar forced climate changes are irrelevant for the last few decades.

How much would the Solar constant have to have risen to provide that much of an increase?

I gave one clearcut example: they mention the Lockwood 2001 citation and suggest that it would demonstrate that solar magnetism has remained constant in recent decades, whereas Lockwood clearly concluded that there was a strong increase (34 % since 1963, and since 1900 even 140 %).

In other words, the Solar constant would have to have increased by 12.8 Watts per square meter to get the observed warming.

Are you suggesting that not all things remain constant and as the solar energy at the TOA increases that the direct energy penetration increases three fold?

Through the complementary combination of wind and solar energy, Kennedy Phase I can deliver a more constant and demand - driven energy production and increased capacity factor.

We perform simulations of future Earth climate by running our baseline model for various (increasing) values of the solar constant until radiative balance is achieved.

More surface warming than cloud - height warming is indicative of surface albedo change and / or fewer clouds and / or increase in solar «constant».

The increase in the cloud cover rate causes the decrease in solar constant value and solar radiation on the earth's surface [which leads to cooling].

You can increase the forcing by 4 W / m2 by either adding 1 % to the solar constant or doubling CO2.

We could, of course, hit some bifurcation in the system where we lose all the summer Arctic sea ice or the Amazon forest, which is bad enough, and could possibly transition the climate to a different «solution» on a hysteresis diagram... this to me would represent more of a step-wise jump (akin to a larger bifurcation that you get in a snowball Earth as you gradually reduce CO2 or the solar constant); but ultimately these represent different behavior than «the interannual variability of the large scale dynamics will increase» or that for some reason the climate should be susceptible to more «flip flops» (as in the glacial Heinrich / D - O events), of which I am aware of no observational or theoretical support.

But if you accept that the greenhouse effect is real, and that CO2 is a GHG, and that CO2 has increased (along with other GHGs), you have to accept the merit of my point: that solar, volcanoes, ocean currents and other natural variations do their thing, they vary, but GHGs exert a steady, constant upward forcing on temperature, which upward forcing is only offset by increased heat losses to space from a warmer planet.

Worse, the magnitude of the average DLR rise is 4.25 times greater than CO2 forcing and 10 times greater than aCO2 forcing so there are far greater consistent (no - ve sign) forcings in operation than CO2 / aCO2 e.g. the constant ~ 3 Wm - 2 per decade solar increase which is an ocean heating agent but CO2 is not in the DLR spectral range (4 — 16 + microns): -

Therefore, if absorbed solar radiation is a constant, F will also tend towards a constant and so G will increase if T increases due to increased opacity in the atmosphere.

Of note was Pouillet's analytic technique: realizing that the solar constant must be (relatively) fixed, but atmospheric absorption would differ each day due to changing atmospheric conditions; and that the latter (given sufficiently stable weather conditions) would increase as a quadratic function of the angle of the sun, Pouillet was able to tease out a simple formula to separate the two values.

Other quotes from your article: «He says that the increased solar brightness over the past 20 years has not been enough to cause the observed climate changes» «While the established view remains that the sun can not be responsible for all the climate changes we have seen in the past 50 years or so, this study is certainly significant,» «He added, however, that the study also showed that over the past 20 years the number of sunspots had remained roughly constant, while the Earth's temperature had continued to increase.»

From 1964 there had been a constant increase in applied solar SW to the equatorial Atlantic (68 an exception) resulting in a constant stream of warmer water flowing north along the E USA to artic.

What makes the blanket / person analogy imperfect is that the absorption of solar energy by the earth remains nearly constant as you increase the CO2 (put on the blanket), whereas for a mammal's body can adjust its metabolism.