Relating IBEX and Voyager Data through Global Modeling of the Heliospheric Interface

Author(s):  
N. V. Pogorelov ◽  
J. Heerikhuisen ◽  
S. N. Borovikov ◽  
G. P. Zank ◽  
R. W. Ebert ◽  
...  
2016 ◽  
Vol 55 (1) ◽  
pp. 93-117 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ehrhard Raschke ◽  
Stefan Kinne ◽  
William B. Rossow ◽  
Paul W. Stackhouse ◽  
Martin Wild

AbstractThis study examines radiative flux distributions and local spread of values from three major observational datasets (CERES, ISCCP, and SRB) and compares them with results from climate modeling (CMIP3). Examinations of the spread and differences also differentiate among contributions from cloudy and clear-sky conditions. The spread among observational datasets is in large part caused by noncloud ancillary data. Average differences of at least 10 W m−2 each for clear-sky downward solar, upward solar, and upward infrared fluxes at the surface demonstrate via spatial difference patterns major differences in assumptions for atmospheric aerosol, solar surface albedo and surface temperature, and/or emittance in observational datasets. At the top of the atmosphere (TOA), observational datasets are less influenced by the ancillary data errors than at the surface. Comparisons of spatial radiative flux distributions at the TOA between observations and climate modeling indicate large deficiencies in the strength and distribution of model-simulated cloud radiative effects. Differences are largest for lower-altitude clouds over low-latitude oceans. Global modeling simulates stronger cloud radiative effects (CRE) by +30 W m−2 over trade wind cumulus regions, yet smaller CRE by about −30 W m−2 over (smaller in area) stratocumulus regions. At the surface, climate modeling simulates on average about 15 W m−2 smaller radiative net flux imbalances, as if climate modeling underestimates latent heat release (and precipitation). Relative to observational datasets, simulated surface net fluxes are particularly lower over oceanic trade wind regions (where global modeling tends to overestimate the radiative impact of clouds). Still, with the uncertainty in noncloud ancillary data, observational data do not establish a reliable reference.


1999 ◽  
Vol 47 (6) ◽  
pp. 830-839 ◽  
Author(s):  
M.B. Steer ◽  
J.F. Harvey ◽  
J.W. Mink ◽  
M.N. Abdulla ◽  
C.E. Christoffersen ◽  
...  

2009 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 359-370 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mauren Fuentes ◽  
Miguel C. Mussati ◽  
Nicolás J. Scenna ◽  
Pío A. Aguirre

Author(s):  
Sergey Lupuleac ◽  
Aleksandr Smirnov ◽  
Julia Shinder ◽  
Margarita Petukhova ◽  
Maria Churilova ◽  
...  

Abstract The complex model of fastener for the global modeling of aircraft assembly with regard to compliance and contact interaction of parts is introduced in the paper. The presented complex fastener model incorporates such effects as the stiffness of fastening elements; the loosening of fasteners and also the failure of fasteners (if the load exceeds the maximal value that fastener can hold). This model can be implemented for all types of fastening elements in variation simulation and assembly optimization analysis. It provides more realistic simulation results at expense of higher model dimension. The fastener is modeled as having an additional stretching stiffness. The option of fastener loosening is included by implementation of additional contact node in each fastening element. This option allows taking into account the pre-tension in fasteners and also enables the modeling of installation and removal of fasteners without change of stiffness matrix.


Oceanography ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 20-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian Arbic ◽  
James Richman ◽  
Jay Shriver ◽  
Patrick Timko ◽  
Joseph Metzger ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
V. V. Izmodenov ◽  
Y. G. Malama ◽  
M. S. Ruderman ◽  
S. V. Chalov ◽  
D. B. Alexashov ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document