Sentences with phrase «atmosphere radiation flux»

The regional climate feedbacks formulation reveals fundamental biases in a widely - used method for diagnosing climate sensitivity, feedbacks and radiative forcing — the regression of the global top - of - atmosphere radiation flux on global surface temperature.

I agree that the concept of no feedback sensitivity makes most sense in the context of the top of the atmosphere radiation fluxes.

Not exact matches

This means that there is an upward surface flux of LW around (~ 390 W / m2), while the outward flux at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) is roughly equivalent to the net solar radiation coming in (1 - a) S / 4 (~ 240 W / m2).

In that survey, it was almost universal that groups tuned for radiation balance at the top of the atmosphere (usually by adjusting uncertain cloud parameters), but there is a split on pratices like using flux corrections (2 / 3rds of groups disagreed with that).

Refraction, specifically the real component of refraction n (describes bending of rays, wavelength changes relative to a vacuum, affects blackbody fluxes and intensities — as opposed to the imaginary component, which is related to absorption and emission) is relatively unimportant to shaping radiant fluxes through the atmosphere on Earth (except on the small scale processes where it (along with difraction, reflection) gives rise to scattering, particularly of solar radiation — in that case, the effect on the larger scale can be described by scattering properties, the emergent behavior).

There is non-radiative heat flux in the atmosphere though and energy can be transported above the level where the greenhouse effect is dominant but eventually must be lost by thermal radiation.

Recent accurate laboratory measurements of the absorption in the CO2 band by CLOUD (1952) were used to calculate the radiation flux in the atmosphere with the aid of the MIDAC high speed digital computor.»

where is the vertically integrated energy flux in the atmosphere, is the net radiative energy input to an atmospheric column (the difference between absorbed shortwave radiation and emitted longwave radiation), and is the oceanic energy uptake at the surface.

The other fluxes (shortwave and longwave radiation at both surface and top of atmosphere) show more «normal» cycles (though somewhat higher values).

Sea ice is an important component of the Earth system; it is highly reflective, altering the amount of solar radiation that is absorbed; it changes the salinity of the ocean where it forms and melts, and it acts as a barrier to the exchange of heat and momentum fluxes between the atmosphere and ocean.

Calculation of solar irradiance i.e. shortwave radiation flux and the atmosphere's heat radiation i.e. longwave radiation flux is important.

Over land, you have a surface energy balance that includes downwelling IR, upwelling IR (Stefan Boltzmann), downwelling solar radiation minus what is reflected back from the surface, latent heat flux and sensible heat flux (these are turbulent fluxes associated with exchange with the atmosphere), and conductive flux from the ground (below the surface).

A SOM is much cheaper and simpler to run compared to a full ocean model, but still reacts to things happening in the atmosphere, like changes in downwelling radiation or fluxes associated with surface wind.

So there is now an increased radiation flux downward, which will heat up both the lower atmosphere and also the ground directly (if the optical depth between the photosphere and the ground is not too great).

«Because the solar - thermal energy balance of Earth [at the top of the atmosphere (TOA)-RSB- is maintained by radiative processes only, and because all the global net advective energy transports must equal zero, it follows that the global average surface temperature must be determined in full by the radiative fluxes arising from the patterns of temperature and absorption of radiation.»

Ice significantly reduces the heat flux between ocean and atmosphere; through its high albedo it has a strong influence on the radiation budget of the entire Arctic.

The atmosphere is analogous to a flexible lens that is shaped by the density distribution of the gas molecules, of the atmosphere in the space between the sphere holding them, and space; Incoming heat gets collected in many ways and places,, primarily by intermittent solar radiation gets stored, in vast quantities, and slowly but also a barrage of mass and energy fluxes from all directions; that are slowly transported great distances and to higher altitudes mostly by oceanic and atmospheric mass flows.

It also balances at the surface including radiation, latent heat, heat flux, and it balances within the atmosphere.

The internal kinetic energy is taken as the upward long wave energy flux at the top of the atmosphere, and the potential energy is the upward radiation flux from the surface.

The cooling rate depends on all the fluxes, including also conductive / convective, latent heat, and back - radiation from the atmosphere.

«in an isotropic non GHG world, the net would be zero, as the mean conduction flux would equalize, but in our earth it is still nearly zero» if the atmosphere were isothermal at the same temperature as the surface then exactly the downwelling radiation absorbed by the surface would be equal to the radiation of th surface absorbed by the air (or rather by its trace gases) and both numbers would be (1 - 2E3 (t (nu)-RRB--RRB- pi B (nu, T) where t (nu) is the optical thickness, B the Planck function, nu the optical frequency and T the temperature; as the flow from the air absorbed by the surface is equal to the flow from the surface absorbed by the air, the radiative heat transfer is zero between surface and air.

In all of these simple models, we assume the atmosphere to have a volume as fixed as a bathtub, we assume that the atmosphere / ocean system is a closed system, we assume that the incoming radiation from the Sun is constant, we assume no turbulence, we assume no viscosity, we assume radiative equilibrium with no feedback lag, we take no account of water vapor flux assuming it to be constant, no change in albedo from changes in land use, glacier lengthening and shortening, no volcanic eruptions, no feedbacks from vegetation.

It seems to me that the two papers use at least a similar approach — and one that seems very sensible to me — correlating surface temperature with radiation fluxes at the top of the atmosphere.

Many believe that increased water vapor, solar variations in radiation and magnetic flux, our relative position in the solar system, the tilt of our planet's axis, the clearing of our atmosphere of pollutants which allows more sunlight to reach the ground, or our position in the Milky Way galaxy that affects the amount of radiation reaching our atmosphere and affecting cloud formation, are also important and are not (and can not be yet) adequately considered in the computer models used by the IPCC consensus.

The climate models create ~ 66 % more than real lower atmosphere warming by the fake «back radiation» idea, taught in US Atmospheric Science for ~ 50 years, coupled with the fake single -18 deg C OLR emitter idea, which provides an imaginary negative Down flux in the bowdlerised two - stream approximation (blame Sagan for this).

Chen, T., and W.B. Rossow, 2002: Determination of top - of - atmosphere longwave radiation fluxes: A comparison between two approaches using ScaRaB data.

A significant flux of solar radiation was found to penetrate the entire thickness of the atmosphere, with the amount at the ground 1.5 % of that incident on the top of the atmosphere.

Abstract Measurements of the flux of downward solar radiation through the atmosphere of Venus and at the planetary surface are reported.

[1] Total absorbed radiation (TAR), the sum of SNR [shortwave net radiation] and LDR [longwave downward radiation], represents the total radiative energy available to maintain the Earth's surface temperature and to sustain the turbulent (sensible and latent) heat fluxes in the atmosphere.

So by KT97 if you let the surface be 289K as stated in TFK09 instead of 288K you can take: 67 Wm - 2 absorbed SW by the atmosphere plus 24 Wm - 2 carried upward by thermals (dry conduction / convection) plus 78 Wm - 2 carried upward by evaporation (convection) plus 66 Wm - 2 actual LW radiation flux upward (radiation)------ 235 Wm - 2 detected LW upwelling by satellites above the TOA

Likewise, the emission of CO2 within its absorption bands is just as effective as its interception, therefore this energy is partitioned throughout the atmosphere and radiated back to earth in its majority (because the escape of energy through the optically thick higher levels of the atmosphere reduces the flux, whereas the earth is still optically close by and a ready recipient of IR radiation.

13) No partitioning of energies into long wave radiation (from the atmosphere) and short wave (from the sun), ensuring that no conclusions can be drawn about where the power fluxes measured are coming from.

We use the 9 climate variables of surface air temperature (SAT), sea level pressure (SLP), precipitation (rain), the top of atmosphere (TOA) shortwave (SW) and longwave (LW) full - sky radiation, clear - sky radiation (CLR, radiative flux where clouds do not exists), and cloud radiative forcing (CRF, radiative effect by clouds diagnosed from the difference between full - sky and clear - sky radiation, Cess et al. 1990).