Sentences with phrase «atmosphere radiative balance»

We need to find an equation that allows factors other than mass, gravity and insolation to affect V without affecting T because according to the Gas Laws T is determined only by the amount of KE needed to keep the mass of the atmosphere off the surface at a given height over and above that required for top of atmosphere radiative balance.

If anything else tries to disturb the temperature (or more accurately energy content) derived from those 3 characteristics alone then all one sees is a change in circulation adjusting the flow of energy throughput to keep top of atmosphere radiative balance stable.

No: that is the beauty of using top of atmosphere radiative balance data — it automatically reflects the flow of heat into the ocean, so thermal inertia of the oceans is irrelevant to the estimate of equilibrium climate sensitivity that it provides, unlike with virtally all other instrumental methods.

Not exact matches

Surface radiative energy budget plays an important role in the Arctic, which is covered by snow and ice: when the balance is positive, more solar radiation from the Sun and the Earth's atmosphere arrives on the Earth's surface than is emitted from it.

ENSO events, for example, can warm or cool ocean surface temperatures through exchange of heat between the surface and the reservoir stored beneath the oceanic mixed layer, and by changing the distribution and extent of cloud cover (which influences the radiative balance in the lower atmosphere).

ENSO events, for example, can warm or cool ocean surface temperatures through exchange of heat between the surface and the reservoir stored beneath the oceanic mixed layer, and by changing the distribution and extent of cloud cover (which influences the radiative balance in the lower atmosphere).

Earth's energy balance In response to a positive radiative forcing F (see Appendix A), such as characterizes the present - day anthropogenic perturbation (Forsteret al., 2007), the planet must increase its net energy loss to space in order to re-establish energy balance (with net energy loss being the difference between the outgoing long - wave (LW) radiation and net incoming shortwave (SW) radiation at the top - of - atmosphere (TOA)-RRB-.

It is the reduced amount of radiation leaving the top of the atmosphere that changes the earth's balance of heat, and therefore defines the «direct radiative forcing» caused by doubling CO2.

But, I think that is likely to affect weather patterns much more than the radiative balance at the top of the atmosphere.

For example, we could describe climate change primarily in terms of the physical processes: carbon emissions, the radiative balance of the atmosphere, average temperatures, and impacts on human life and ecosystems.

A vast array of thought has been brought to bear on this problem, beginning with Arrhenius» simple energy balance calculation, continuing through Manabe's one - dimensional radiative - convective models in the 1960's, and culminating in today's comprehensive atmosphere - ocean general circulation models.

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.

The radiative balance over equilibrium timescales — the heat released by raindrop formation will locally warm the atmosphere, but it takes time for the atmospheric circulation to average this out.

So a local spike in precipitation releases a lot of heat — but as the heat increases, this negatively affects the vapor - > water transition (precipitation, or raindrop formation), since warm air holds more water then cool air — and so the limit on precipitation vis - a-vis the radiative balance of the atmosphere appears.

This must warm the atmosphere in order for radiative balance to be maintained.

Then, if compositional changes occur, involving changes in the net radiative balance of the entire atmosphere the climate zones will shift as the atmosphere has to work more hard or less hard to maintain top of atmosphere energy balance.

Syllabus: Lecture 1: Introduction to Global Atmospheric Modelling Lecture 2: Types of Atmospheric and Climate Models Lecture 3: Energy Balance Models Lecture 4: 1D Radiative - Convective Models Lecture 5: General Circulation Models (GCMs) Lecture 6: Atmospheric Radiation Budget Lecture 7: Dynamics of the Atmosphere Lecture 8: Parametrizations of Subgrid - Scale Physical Processes Lecture 9: Chemistry of the Atmosphere Lecture 10: Basic Methods of Solving Model Equations Lecture 11: Coupled Chemistry - Climate Models (CCMs) Lecture 12: Applications of CCMs: Recent developments of atmospheric dynamics and chemistry Lecture 13: Applications of CCMs: Future Polar Ozone Lecture 14: Applications of CCMs: Impact of Transport Emissions Lecture 15: Towards an Earth System Model

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.

To evaluate the global effects of aerosols on the direct radiative balance, tropospheric chemistry, and cloud properties of the earth's atmosphere requires high - precision remote sensing that is sensitive to the aerosol optical thickness, size istribution, refractive index, and number density.

«Radiative forcing is a measure of the influence a factor has in altering the balance of incoming and outgoing energy in the Earth - atmosphere system and is an index of the importance of the factor as a potential climate change mechanism.

But on larger scales (both in space and time) the earth is a planet of our local star; the sun is our only source of (purely radiative) energy; we have an atmosphere which clearly operates to reduce diurnal variations in temperature (which on black body basis would otherwise be huge, on human scale) and the radiative budget must always be exactly in balance.

His model of the atmosphere was advanced for the time, but he did consider the radiative balance at the surface, whereas we now consider that this is flawed and the balance at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) is more appropriate.

Heat melts Rock like ice and this thuderhead of magma rises high in the geo - sky to bring heat to sea level, thus balancing the core «s heat output when it's radiative rate is slowed by the R - value of the gas atmosphere.

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.

«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.»

However, it is much easier to figure out what happens when you add more radiative gases to an atmosphere that already has them: And, the answer is that it increases the IR opacity of the atmosphere, which increases the altitude of the effective radiating level and hence means the emission is occurring from a lower - temperature layer, leading to a reduction of emission that is eventually remedied by the atmosphere heating up so that radiative balance at the top - of - the - atmosphere is restored.

Yes, inert gases do absorb incident Solar radiation in the UV and visible spectra, so the atmosphere warms to radiative balance, and the temperature at the base of the atmosphere determines (or «supports») the surface temperature.

As you point out, there is no question that adding CO2 to the atmosphere affects what I call the «radiative balance» for want of a better term.

Thus with GHGs in an atmosphere the circulation can slow down because more of its job of maintaining top of atmosphere energy balance is done for it by those radiative gases.

If all farm animals disappeared, tomorrow, we could not measure the impact on the radiative balance of the atmosphere.

The gas constant therefore sets the volume of atmosphere needed to leave the surface temperature at the level required to both support the atmosphere AND achieve radiative balance at the top of the atmosphere.

T represents the amount of energy available from all sources to maintain the constant flow that keeps the atmosphere off the surface AND achieves radiative balance at the top of the atmosphere.

Additionally, physical phenomena and processes, driven by (1) the net energy that reaches the atmosphere and surface, (2) redistribution of energy content already within the systems, and (3) activities of human kind, directly affect the radiative energy balance from which the hypothesis was developed.

Is the mathematical solution to the fluid flow over the airplane wing simpler than the mathematical solution to the instantaneous radiative - convective balance in the atmosphere?

Aerosols not only affect the radiative balance at the top of the atmosphere but also exert a forcing on the hydrological cycle (e.g., Ramanathan et al., 2001a).

The amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere combined with other factors determine the radiative balance, and / or temperature at which relative thermal equilibrium for a planet occurs based on these factors.

2) Failing to acknowledge that natural variations in the effective radiating height of the atmosphere occur all the time as a result of the ever changing balance between different non radiative processes within the atmosphere.

In the absence of absorption of terrestrial radiation by the atmosphere (and with the other caveats about still having the same albedo and such), that average temperature would have to be 255 K at the surface because of radiative balance and then the temperature would decrease with height at the lapse rate from there.

E.g., given that the net radiative balance at the top of the atmosphere remains negative, which certainly indicates continued warming, Trenberth's studies suggest deep ocean uptake of most of the recent heating.

If the atmosphere contained no IR - absorbing substances, then all the IR emitted by the earth's surface would escape into space and radiative balance would dictate that the earth's average surface temperature (or really the average of emissivity * T ^ 4 where T is the absolute temperature and the emissivity of most terrestrial materials in the wavelength range of interest is very close to 1) is set by the condition that the earth must radiate as much energy as it absorbs from the sun.

Radiative balance of the earth system then sets the temperature at this level in the atmosphere and the temperature at the surface basically follows from the lapse rate.

That is determined by consideration of the absorption of the atmosphere of terrestrial radiation (and radiation emitted by the atmosphere), which essentially ends up determining at what altitude the temperature has to be determined via radiative balance between the Earth system (earth + atmosphere) and the sun and space [which for the earth system with its current albedo is ~ 255 K].

What he shows is that a change in the radiative balance between the surface and the atmosphere even by a larger amount, such as 10 W / m ^ 2 would result in only a very small surface temperature change while a change in the greenhouse effect (i.e., the radiative balance between the earth and space) by 10 W / m ^ 2 results in a much larger surface temperature change (almost 2 orders of magnitude larger if I recall correctly).

Here is a more correct way to say things: When one considers convection, the best quantity to consider is the radiative balance at the top of the atmosphere.

A: The volume integral (heat balance equation) as presented in Pielke (2003) http://blue.atmos.colostate.edu/publications/pdf/R-247.pdf suggests that the changes in ocean heat storage averaged over a year are a snapshot of the radiative imbalance at the top of the atmosphere.

Over this five year time span, the latest observations appear to show that the top of the atmosphere has been in an averaged state of radiative balance.

The problem of obtaining a realistic value for the absorptivity to emissivity ratio for all the entities at Earth's surface, and in its atmosphere, that participate in the radiative balance is a formidable task.

Comparison with independent data, such as the top of atmosphere (TOA) radiative balance also provides insight (32).

However, six out of the 19 references in the paper are to Miskolczi himself and the fundamental equations brought up for energy balance (where radiative exchange is referenced) rely on his more lengthy 2007 paper, Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres.

But because the atmosphere blocks infrared, the planet must emit more infrared into the atmosphere, so that radiative balance is maintained.