Sentences with phrase «for radiative transfer»

To compute what happens quantitatively, one must solve the equations for radiative transfer absorption - line by absorption - line through the atmosphere.

Can you tell me what is wrong with the standard solution of the equations for radiative transfer in the atmosphere and how you know this and where you are planning to publish it?

It's also the case that the results for the radiative transfer equations will have a certain amount of error using «band models» compared with the «line by line» (LBL) codes for all trace gases.

At basic level, It falls out of the equations for radiative transfer if you increase a greenhouse gas.

«A Global Average Model of Atmospheric Aerosols for Radiative Transfer Calculations.»

It only gets worse with his subsequent (2007, 2010, 2014) publications — all in obscure journals that have no credible reviewing capability for radiative transfer modeling topics.

For idealized GCMs, we use the FMS dynamical core (that is, the basic numerical schemes FMS provides for the hydrostatic primitive equations), with various idealizations for the lower boundary conditions, for radiative transfer, and for moist or dry convection.

Not exact matches

«I came to Berkeley Lab 21 years ago to work on supernova radiative - transfer modeling and now for the first time we've used these theoretical models to prove that we can do cosmology better,» says Nugent.

But predicting such radiative heat transfer between extremely close objects has proven elusive for the past 50 years.

It is work noting that the eruption of Mt. Pinitubo mentioned by the author of post 41 served as a very nice «test case» for those researchs in the fields of atmosperic chemistry and radiative transfer.

Topics covered: Cloud and haze formation and evolution in Earth Atmosphere — Radiative Transfer and Polarization in Atmosphere Characterization — Atmospheric Circulation Regimes for Solar System and Exoplanets — Clouds and Hazes in the Early Earth — Clouds and Planetary Habitability — Clouds and Hazes in Jupiter, Saturn, Titan — Clouds and Hazes in Strongly Irradiated Exoplanets — Clouds and Hazes in Weakly Irradiated - Exoplanets and Brown Dwarfs

We construct a radiative transfer model that accounts for the main characteristics of the features with an inner and outer disk misaligned by ~ 72 degrees.

While many basic aspects of physics can be included (conservation of mass, energy etc.), many need to be approximated for reasons of efficiency or resolutions (i.e. the equations of motion need estimates of sub-gridscale turbulent effects, radiative transfer codes approximate the line - by - line calculations using band averaging), and still others are only known empirically (the formula for how fast clouds turn to rain for instance).

(Even for a relatively simple example of a gray medium, calculating the equilibrium temperature profile within a homogeneous slab involves a singular Fredholm integral equation of the second kind as described by M. N. Ozisik in Radiative Transfer (1973).)

[Response: Changes in the atmospheric composition are negligible for their effect on the gas law, but not in terms of radiative transfer, so your conclusion is invalid.]

The basic principle for the development of ARTS is to provide a code that can be applied for many different applications concerning radiative transfer calculations in the microwave region.

ARTS is a radiative transfer model for the millimeter and sub-millimeter spectral range.

In the following, after a description of the used radiative transfer model we show spectrally resolved typical simulations of atmospheric transmission and OLR for a standard atmospheric situation.

Since many of these processes result in non-symmetric time, location and temperature dependant feedbacks (eg water vapor, clouds, CO2 washout, condensation, ice formation, radiative and convective heat transfer etc) then how can a model that uses yearly average values for the forcings accurately reflect the results?

I feel like I'm belaboring the point, but I would refer anyone interested to go back to # 333 for the thermodynamic / radiative transfer analysis.

I don't want to see this thread get hung up on geoengineering but the device Hank describes offers some nice opportunities for thinking about infrared radiative transfer and the greenhouse effect, so let's all give it a go.

Line - by - line type radiative transfer calculations used to find a forcing for a certain fractional change in CO2 (e.g., the Myhre et al 1998 paper) can not be applied to conditions like Venus or ancient Earth.

It is worth keeping in mind that radiative transfer encompasses a variety of different «regimes» for which different impacts are important.

The fact that the black (gray) body is rotating must play a part in the difference in the radiative transfer for if it were not rotating the total heat transfer would be much different.

Nowhere in the paper does it show that radiative transfer models are a sutiabke vehicle for estimating radiaitve forcing.

The arguement for the righteousness of a radiative transfer model can not nor will not be sustained by an angry or violent delivery.

As curator of an ancient art form: «the trace gas radiative transfer model» I congratulate you for your persistence in keeping such objects of art in the public eye.

Are you saying that the models of radiative transfer of energy are complete and sufficiently accurate for this problem?

The fact is that Radiative Heat Transfer accounts for only 19 % of the overall transfer of energy from the surface to the atmTransfer accounts for only 19 % of the overall transfer of energy from the surface to the atmtransfer of energy from the surface to the atmosphere.

With funding from the U.S. Department of Energy, AER has developed the highly accurate and efficient radiative transfer code RRTMG for application to global models.

In these planetary GCMs, we use a relatively simple two - stream radiative transfer for scattering and absorbing atmospheres, with assumed diffuse incident of solar radiation at the top of the model domain.

you're missing the point — radiative heat transfer is the smallest part of the climate system — it just works better for their pet theory — called the greenhouse effect — that was proven wrong almost a century ago!

A look - up table of total transmittance at 415 nm is calculated using a radiative transfer model for a range of cloud water path, effective radius, optical depth, and solar zenith angles.

3) Under the assumption of radiative equilibrium, it can be shown that the surface temperature of a planet would slightly and non linearily increase with the concentration of IR active gases (primarily H2O) if and only if radiation was the only mean for energy transfer.

Nowhere in the paper is any justification given as to why radiative transfer models give values for radiative forcing as defined in Chaper 6 of the TAR.

is, in the circumstances, gravely damaging to him, since it suggests that he repudiates (for instance) such proven scientific results as the fundamental equation of radiative transfer.

I pointed out that, so far as I could see, the authors had never justiified the use of radiative transfer models for the estimation of radiative forcing.

The purpose of this article was to show that it is easy (relatively) to show that convection and radiative heat transfers should be comparable in scope for the Earth's surface and the atmosphere.

Possible explanations for the range of radiative forcings projected for 2100 are discussed in Section 10.2.1.4, including evidence for systematic errors in the formulations of radiative transfer used in AOGCMs.

For instance, radiative transfer models (measuring heat balance) are quite well verified, and accurately predict the rise in the temperature (and hence energy) of the atmosphere as the CO2 level increases.

For myself, I call into question not the «basic radiative transfer physics» but the completeness and accuracy of the atmospheric models: all of the equations are approximations, the response of clouds to CO2 increase and warming are not well known, yet AGW proponents act as though a slight increase in temp following a long increase in CO2 is a sure thing.

Chami, M., B. Lafrance, B. Fougnie, J. Chowdhary, T. Harmel, and F. Waquet, 2015: OSOAA: A vector radiative transfer model of coupled atmosphere - ocean system for a rough sea surface application to the estimates of the directional variations of the water leaving reflectance to better process multi-angular satellite sensors data over the ocean.

The SASBE could, for example, be used to constrain a radiative transfer model to provide top - of - the - atmosphere radiances with traceable uncertainty estimates.

As you say, convection uses up a lot of energy too and also counters the idea of radiative heat transfer as a big ticket item because «hot» CO2 molecules only remain so for a brief fraction of a second before they collide with N2 or O2 to warm that localised parcel of air; which then rises to attain equilibrium T somewhere higher and at a COLDER temp so no rad Transf!!!

This fast radiative transfer model developed and maintained by the NWP SAF is used by OSI SAF for SST retrieval

Scientists have predicted that GHG forcing resulting from the physics of radiative transfer will cause energetic imbalance for over a century.

So the 3.7 W m - 2 calculation for global radiative forcing could be refined perhaps by an improved experimental design (not necessarily by improved radiative transfer models) running RT models at each grid cell over the globe, over the diurnal cycle and the annual cycle for say 30 years, for the two different CO2 concentrations, such a detailed calculation would refine the 3.7 value.

Let me once again illustrate this with the use of radiative transfer models to estimate the change in radiative forcing for a doubling of CO2.

For example, I go further back in the claims that CO2 causes global warming, to the use of radiative transfer models to estimate the change in radiative forcing for a doubling of CFor example, I go further back in the claims that CO2 causes global warming, to the use of radiative transfer models to estimate the change in radiative forcing for a doubling of Cfor a doubling of CO2.

«The dual wave and particle nature of radiation is recognised, but it is considered more appropriate, and indeed necessary, for an understanding of radiative heat transfer to consider the frequencies and intensities associated with the wave nature of radiation, for only then can the one - way transfer of heat be described and quantified in a meaningful manner.»