lmd_EMC31990.bib

@comment{{This file has been generated by bib2bib 1.95}}
@comment{{Command line: /usr/bin/bib2bib --quiet -c 'not journal:"Discussions"' -c 'not journal:"Polymer Science"' -c year=1990 -c $type="ARTICLE" -oc lmd_EMC31990.txt -ob lmd_EMC31990.bib /home/WWW/LMD/public/Publis_LMDEMC3.link.bib}}
@article{1990JGR....9516601C,
  author = {{Cess}, R.~D. and {Potter}, G.~L. and {Blanchet}, J.~P. and 
	{Boer}, G.~J. and {Del Genio}, A.~D. and {DéQué}, M. and 
	{Dymnikov}, V. and {Galin}, V. and {Gates}, W.~L. and {Ghan}, S.~J. and 
	{Kiehl}, J.~T. and {Lacis}, A.~A. and {Le Treut}, H. and {Li}, Z.-X. and 
	{Liang}, X.-Z. and {McAvaney}, B.~J. and {Meleshko}, V.~P. and 
	{Mitchell}, J.~F.~B. and {Morcrette}, J.-J. and {Randall}, D.~A. and 
	{Rikus}, L. and {Roeckner}, E. and {Royer}, J.~F. and {Schlese}, U. and 
	{Sheinin}, D.~A. and {Slingo}, A. and {Sokolov}, A.~P. and {Taylor}, K.~E. and 
	{Washington}, W.~M. and {Wetherald}, R.~T. and {Yagai}, I. and 
	{Zhang}, M.-H.},
  title = {{Intercomparison and interpretation of climate feedback processes in 19 atmospheric general circulation models}},
  journal = {\jgr},
  keywords = {Meteorology and Atmospheric Dynamics: Climatology, Meteorology and Atmospheric Dynamics: General circulation},
  year = 1990,
  month = sep,
  volume = 95,
  pages = {16},
  abstract = {{The need to understand differences among general circulation model
projections of CO$_{2}$-induced climatic change has motivated the
present study, which provides an intercomparison and interpretation of
climate feedback processes in 19 atmospheric general circulation models.
This intercomparison uses sea surface temperature change as a surrogate
for climate change. The interpretation of cloud-climate interactions is
given special attention. A roughly threefold variation in one measure of
global climate sensitivity is found among the 19 models. The important
conclusion is that most of this variation is attributable to differences
in the models' depiction of cloud feedback, a result that emphasizes the
need for improvements in the treatment of clouds in these models if they
are ultimately to be used as reliable climate predictors. It is further
emphasized that cloud feedback is the consequence of all interacting
physical and dynamical processes in a general circulation model. The
result of these processes is to produce changes in temperature, moisture
distribution, and clouds which are integrated into the radiative
response termed cloud feedback.
}},
  doi = {10.1029/JD095iD10p16601},
  adsurl = {https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990JGR....9516601C},
  adsnote = {Provided by the SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System}
}
@article{1990JCli....3..865P,
  author = {{Picon}, L. and {Desbois}, M.},
  title = {{Relation between METEOSAT Water Vapor Radiance Fields and Large Scale Tropical Circulation Features.}},
  journal = {Journal of Climate},
  year = 1990,
  month = aug,
  volume = 3,
  pages = {865-876},
  abstract = {{Mean monthly images from the water vapor channel of METEOSAT
characteristically contain large-scale spatial structures, especially in
tropical regions. The aim of this paper is to establish connections
between these structures and large-scale circulation features. For this
purpose, statistical relationships between radiances and some
meteorological parameters provided by ECMWF analyses are
studied.Temporal correlations are computed for two sizes of regions, in
order to compare temporal changes associated with both large-scale
circulations and smaller scale systems. The correlations obtained are
poor, suggesting that the chosen parameters are not well related at
short time scales.Temporal averages appear more suitable for these
comparisons. As expected, the mean relative humidity yields the best
correlation with the mean water vapor radiances. A (weaker) relationship
exists also with mean dynamic fields: large water vapor radiances are
almost always related to subsidence in the middle troposphere,
divergence near the surface, and convergence in the upper troposphere.
However, there is regional variability in the results., one explanation
may be different contributions from horizontal advecion and vertical
motions to the humidity of the middle troposphere.
}},
  doi = {10.1175/1520-0442(1990)003<0865:RBMWVR>2.0.CO;2},
  adsurl = {https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990JCli....3..865P},
  adsnote = {Provided by the SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System}
}
@article{1990A&A...229..240F,
  author = {{Fairhead}, L. and {Bretagnon}, P.},
  title = {{An analytical formula for the time transformation TB-TT}},
  journal = {\aap},
  keywords = {Astrometry, Celestial Mechanics, Time Functions, Equations Of Motion, Periodic Variations},
  year = 1990,
  month = mar,
  volume = 229,
  pages = {240-247},
  abstract = {{An analytical formula for the time transformation TB-TT valid over a few
thousand years around J2000 has been computed with an accuracy at the 1
ns level. The 127 coefficients presented in this paper provide a formula
accurate at the 100 ns level. The numerical and analytical procedures to
compute this transformation are discussed and compared. It is noted that
these procedures cannot fully comply with recommendations 5 of the 1976
IAU meeting. Furthermore, these procedures yield different units for the
corresponding TB time scales. It is verified that this transformation is
independent of the two parameterized post Newtonian parameters gamma and
beta and of the three most commonly used coordinate systems (isotropic,
standard-Schwarzschild, Painleve) at least the 1 ns level.
}},
  adsurl = {https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990A%26A...229..240F},
  adsnote = {Provided by the SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System}
}