2016
DOI: 10.1098/rsta.2015.0213
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

On the variability of near-surface screen temperature anomalies in the 20 March 2015 solar eclipse

Abstract: One contribution of 16 to a theme issue 'Atmospheric effects of solar eclipses stimulated by the 2015 UK eclipse' .

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
29
2

Year Published

2016
2016
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(33 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
2
29
2
Order By: Relevance
“…The temperature anomalies derived from the NEWEx observations are broadly consistent with this, as figure 5 shows that the 0940 temperature anomalies are typically within the range observed in [16]. Furthermore, there is fair agreement between the structure of the temperature anomaly field at 0940 and the contours of the maximum temperature anomaly presented in fig.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 85%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The temperature anomalies derived from the NEWEx observations are broadly consistent with this, as figure 5 shows that the 0940 temperature anomalies are typically within the range observed in [16]. Furthermore, there is fair agreement between the structure of the temperature anomaly field at 0940 and the contours of the maximum temperature anomaly presented in fig.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 85%
“…Furthermore, there is fair agreement between the structure of the temperature anomaly field at 0940 and the contours of the maximum temperature anomaly presented in fig. 7 a of [16]. However, we do note that Clark [16] reports a smaller average temperature anomaly and a longer average lag (≈15 min) between maximum obscuration and the maximum temperature anomaly.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 57%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Although all contributions are relevant, we specifically refer only to the articles with a direct link to our own study (Aplin et al, 2016;Clark, 2016;Good, 2016;Hanna et al, 2016;Burt, 2016;Pasachoff et al, 2016;Gray and Harrison, 2016;Portas et al, 2016;Barnard et al, 2016).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The maximum difference between the measurements during penumbral shading and these fitted values was then determined. This approach closely followed the method used by Segal et al (1996), or the linear approach used by Clark (2016). In a few cases (sites GRH, ROG, ULR, VAD, VSBLI; see Table S2), however, this approach failed (e.g., because of instationarity shortly before, shortly after, or during the time period of the eclipse, which can lead to erratic interpolations) and thus the simple temperature difference with respect to 19 March was used.…”
Section: Calculation Of Temperature Dropmentioning
confidence: 99%