Sentences with phrase «atmosphere at equilibrium»

Since there has been no increase in T the total amount of energy flowing through the atmosphere at equilibrium remains the same as before but the GHGs have absorbed more energy so where is it?

@David X (where X on this blog is never «Mermin», sadly): An isothermal atmosphere at equilibrium is a contradiction in terms.

An isothermal atmosphere at equilibrium is a contradiction in terms.

Not exact matches

It represents the warming at the earth's surface that is expected after the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere doubles and the climate subsequently stabilizes (reaches equilibrium).

When it is assumed that the CO2 content of the atmosphere is doubled and statistical thermal equilibrium is achieved, the more realistic of the modeling efforts predict a global surface warming of between 2 °C and 3.5 °C, with greater increases at high latitudes.

If we start out with a balanced system which contains frozen water at the poles, the mid to high latitudes begin to thaw, triggering soil greenhouse gas feedbacks (permafrost thaw and following oxic and anoxic sources add to the greenhouse gas budget), a chronic linear process (which helps to accelerate changes of the equilibrium state, reduces the ability of the atmosphere to break down greenhouse gases — less hydroxide radicals).

What happens at the «top of atmosphere» — the level where outgoing radiation leaves for space, not itself a very easy concept — is the restoration of equilibrium, the increase in temperature that, through Helmholtz - Boltzmann at the Earth's brightness temperature 255K, restores the balance between incoming and outgoing energies.

I do understand that the solar energy - in dictates the earthly energy - out at equilibrium at the balance point at the Top Of Atmosphere (~ 10,000 m) and that unless the solar - in changes then the law of conservation of energy requires that the Stefan - Boltzman derived 255 K temperature at equilibrium at this balance point can not change.

Since anthropogenic emitted CO2 comes out of a power plant stacks / vehicle exhausts at an elevated temperature (due to the trivial manmade waste heat energy), and then cools down to near equilibrium with the rest of the atmosphere, why would this new CO2 then absorb more energy and heatup again?

Added to this is the reality that the atmosphere returns to equilibrium at least twice every day since in its daily warming and cooling every point on earth goes from absorbing energy in the day to expelling energy at night, passing through equilibrium in the process.

... interestingly in the grey gas case with no solar heating of the stratosphere, increasing the optical thickness of the atmosphere would result in an initial cooling of and in the vicinity of the skin layer (reduced OLR), and an initial radiative warming of the air just above the surface (increased backradiation)-- of course, the first of those dissappears at full equilibrium.

Because latent heat release in the course of precipitation must be balanced in the global mean by infrared radiative cooling of the troposphere (over time scales at which the atmosphere is approximately in equilibrium), it is sometimes argued that radiative constraints limit the rate at which precipitation can increase in response to increasing CO2.

Adding more optical thickness to the same band reduces OLR in that band, cooling at least some portion of the upper atmosphere up to the TOA level, and increases in OLR outside that band results in some portion of that cooling remaining at full equilibrium (as expained by Andy Lacis).

At the point where there is so much H2O vapor in the atmosphere that there is very little solar heating of the surface (very very far from happenning), there will also tend to be almost no net LW cooling at the surface, so a tropospheric - type lapse rate could still tend to extend down to the surface (as long as the net LW cooling is smaller than the SW heating, there will be some non-radiative flux from the surface for equilibrium conditionsAt the point where there is so much H2O vapor in the atmosphere that there is very little solar heating of the surface (very very far from happenning), there will also tend to be almost no net LW cooling at the surface, so a tropospheric - type lapse rate could still tend to extend down to the surface (as long as the net LW cooling is smaller than the SW heating, there will be some non-radiative flux from the surface for equilibrium conditionsat the surface, so a tropospheric - type lapse rate could still tend to extend down to the surface (as long as the net LW cooling is smaller than the SW heating, there will be some non-radiative flux from the surface for equilibrium conditions).

Here on Earth, from the base of the crust upwards, the mix of elements as elements or compounds, up through to the top of the atmosphere are not at chemical equilibrium.

Radiative equilibrium at small LW optical thickness occurs when the whole atmosphere has a temperature such that the Planck function is about half of that of the surface (a skin temperature), whereas at larger LW optical thicknesses, the equilibrium profile has a signficant drop in the Planck function through the atmosphere, approaching half the OLR value at TOA and approaching the surface value towards the surface — of course, convection near the surface will bring a closer match between surface and surface - air temperatures.

(PS a skin temperature can be lower than the brightness temperature of the OLR because a very thin layer at the top of the atmosphere will absorb a tiny fraction of OLR, thus barely affecting OLR, but must in equilibrium emit that same amount of energy both upwards and downwards; if it were as warm as the brightness temperature of the OLR then it would emit twice what it absorbs and thus cool.

In the absence of solar heating, there is an equilibrium «skin temperature» that would be approached in the uppermost atmosphere (above the effective emitting altitude) which is only dependent on the outgoing longwave (LW) radiation to space in the case where optical properties in the LW part of the spectrum are invariant over wavelength (this skin temperature will be colder than the temperature at the effective emitting altitude).

Once the ice reaches the equator, the equilibrium climate is significantly colder than what would initiate melting at the equator, but if CO2 from geologic emissions build up (they would, but very slowly — geochemical processes provide a negative feedback by changing atmospheric CO2 in response to climate changes, but this is generally very slow, and thus can not prevent faster changes from faster external forcings) enough, it can initiate melting — what happens then is a runaway in the opposite direction (until the ice is completely gone — the extreme warmth and CO2 amount at that point, combined with left - over glacial debris available for chemical weathering, will draw CO2 out of the atmosphere, possibly allowing some ice to return).

Starting with zero atmospheric LW absorption, adding any small amount cools the whole atmopshere towards a skin temperature and warms the surface — tending to produce a troposphere (the forcing at any level will be positive, and thus will be positive at the tropopause; it will increase downward toward the surface if the atmosphere were not already as cold as the skin temperature, thus resulting in atmospheric cooling toward the skin temperature; cooling within the troposphere will be balanced by convective heating from the surface at equilibrium, with that surface + troposphere layer responding to tropopause - level forcing.)

As more optical thickness is added to a «new» band, it will gain greater control over the temperature profile, but eventually, the equilibrium for that band will shift towards a cold enough upper atmosphere and warm enough lower atmosphere and surface, such that farther increases will cool the upper atmosphere or just that portion near TOA while warming the lower atmosphere and surface — until the optical thickness is so large (relative to other bands) that the band loses influence (except at TOA) and has little farther effect (except at TOA).

Any discussion about not being at equilibrium yet (the usual response), fails to notice that on a daily basis the temperature varies by 10 - 15 degrees and that these changes will force the ground / atmosphere to get to equilibrium within a day or two.

If in exceeds out and the diffential MUST exist from top to bottom of the atmosphere, then before the hotter air can migrate to the deep ocean, the daily temerature cycling will force the hotter air at the bottom into an overall equlibrium ie hotter air will rise — or more correctly since GHGs have heated the air up more at the bottom, then the sun induced daily warming will add more heat to the top, & less at the bottom to force the equilibrium — ie effectively hot air rising even if not in actuality.

SO just HOW can we justify that that the outflow in the computer MUST be less than inflow for the 250 years of the computer run, when clearly the daily temperature cycle will reestablish the equilibrium (at least for the atmosphere & ground — not sure about deep ocean equilibrium, BUT I also know that there is MUCH MUCH MORE energy stored in the Land (eg solid iron core of earth) than in the ocean & the GCMs do NOT address this either).

The surface budget must close just like the top - of - atmosphere balance does at equilibrium, but the surface temperature will still be dragged along by the top of atmosphere energy budget.

If CO2 were increased in a pulse of a few parts per million — the atmosphere warms rapidly and there may be a very temporary imbalance in radiative flux at TOA before equilibrium is restored with a warmer atmosphere.

I think that all they represent is the temperature of the atmosphere when it is in equilibrium at any given level.

That must be so because the Earth (at the top of the atmosphere) quickly arrives at a thermal equilibrium by virtue of the fact that radiant energy coming in and radiant energy going out both travel at the speed of light.

That lower boundary layer of the atmosphere is the surface and since the atmosphere and the surface are in near steady state equilibrium is the best indication that much of the heat transfer takes place at that boundary.

Once the appropriate planetary temperature increase has been set by the delay in transmission through the atmosphere then equilibrium is restored between radiant energy in and radiant energy out at the top of the atmosphere.

If we have a warming atmosphere the conditional energy equilibrium is restored — so the energy imbalance is transitory at best.

Can it be said that CO2 is in equilibrium while we're pumping it into the atmosphere at 10 GtC / yr?

Between two systems not at thermodynamic equilibrium, NET energy transfer can only be in one direction — from the system of higher energy to the system of lower energy, in this case, FROM the oceans, TO the atmosphere.

With regard to the diabatic process the exchange of radiation in and out reaches thermal equilibrium relatively quickly (leaving Earth's oceans out of the scenario for current purposes) and once the temperature rise within the atmosphere has occurred then equilibrium has been achieved and energy in at TOA will match energy out.

Practically all small volumes of the atmosphere are in local thermal equilibrium at a level of accuracy needed for applying Kirchhoff's law.

So it seems to me that the simple way of communicating a complex problem has led to several fallacies becoming fixed in the discussions of the real problem; (1) the Earth is a black body, (2) with no materials either surrounding the systems or in the systems, (3) in radiative energy transport equilibrium, (4) response is chaotic solely based on extremely rough appeal to temporal - based chaotic response, (5) but at the same time exhibits trends, (6) but at the same time averages of chaotic response are not chaotic, (7) the mathematical model is a boundary value problem yet it is solved in the time domain, (8) absolutely all that matters is the incoming radiative energy at the TOA and the outgoing radiative energy at the Earth's surface, (9) all the physical phenomena and processes that are occurring between the TOA and the surface along with all the materials within the subsystems can be ignored, (10) including all other activities of human kind save for our contributions of CO2 to the atmosphere, (11) neglecting to mention that if these were true there would be no problem yet we continue to expend time and money working on the problem.

Yes, but the thermosphere is not in local thermodynamic equilibrium likely not even considered part of the «radiant» atmosphere since there are considerable high energy photons and particles passing through it at various angles impacting molecules that can not easily share their energy level..

Co2 in the atmosphere doesn't change — it remains in equilibrium at 600 units.

I fully agree that AT EQUILIBRIUM individual molecules of CO2 will exchange between two phases (e.g. ocean and atmosphere) with no net mass transfer.

He does not look at the top of atmosphere balance to see how it remains unbalanced under his modified state, so he hasn't looked at radiative equilibrium, but some kind of transient response, as far as I can tell.

Much as a drop of dye in a set of connected containers will diffuse between them until reaching some equilibrium concentration, at rates dependent upon exchange rates, bomb - spiked C14 CO2 will reduce its level in the atmosphere at a fairly quick rate, replaced by other isotopes in relation to their concentration, because quite frankly there is more C14 at the spike point (atmosphere) than in the oceans.

Therefore at low temperatures and high pressures as is the case in the low atmosphere, the equilibrium between the different quantum states (the proportions must stay constant) is mainly ruled by collisions.

But there would still be gradients, convection and conduction within the GHG free atmosphere because without it the whole atmosphere would be fast at 0K as it radiates to the empty space while the ground is at whatever equilibrium temperature it should be.

Nowhere in the atmosphere is at equilibrium (except in the sense of a dynamic equilibrium with continuous energy flows).

The temperature at various locations in the atmosphere and on the surface of the earth is determined by the net flux of energy at that location (and never reaches true equilibrium because the energy input from the sun changes with night / day and the seasons).

As I've said three times now (and you've ignored) Henry's law determines a fixed partitioning ratio between the atmosphere and oceans of 1:50 at equilibrium meaning that when equilibrium between PCO2 (g) and PCO2 (aq) is reached the oceans must contain about 50 times as much CO2 as the atmosphere.

The Earth's albedo reflects away about 30 % of the Sun's 1,368 W / m ^ 2 energy leaving 70 % or 958 W / m ^ 2 to «warm» the surface (1.5 m above ground) and at an S - B BB equilibrium temperature of 361 K, 33 C cooler (394 - 361) than the earth with no atmosphere or albedo.

Sorry Mike, but as I pointed out above, you're ignoring the fast - equilibrium of Henry's law, which sets a fixed partitioning ratio of 1:50 for how much CO2 resides in the atmosphere and oceans respectively at the current mean surface temperature of 15C.

Again Henrys Law goes both ways, if the atmosphere is increasing at the rate of 30 billion tonnes of CO2 per year then the extra CO2 in the atmosphere has disturbed the equilibrium and CO2 will move into the oceans.

I have just definitively proven above that it is not a feature of static equilibrium, it is a dynamic phenomena caused by differential and irregular time dependent heating and cooling, where the bulk of the heating is at the surface, but where heat loss occurs to some extent very high up in the atmosphere as well.