Sentences with phrase «atmospheric heat energy»

(4) I suppose that temperature records are the only data we have that allow us to look back a century or more but it seems to me that total atmospheric heat energy is what we're really after, not temperature.

2)-- We can't detect the rise because the additional atmospheric heat energy is somehow being transmitted into the oceans.

Not exact matches

Scientists at the Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) and NASA are using X-rays to explore, via 3 - D visualizations, how the microscopic structures of spacecraft heat shield and parachute materials survive extreme temperatures and pressures, including simulated atmospheric entry conditions on Mars.

That excess tropical energy fueled rising air in a process known as convection, creating rain, releasing heat, and forming large - scale atmospheric patterns called Rossby waves.

The basic scenario goes as follows: Hurricanes — circular storms spinning around a region of low atmospheric pressure — are powered by energy released by spiraling surface winds that draw heat from the ocean.

For as much as atmospheric temperatures are rising, the amount of energy being absorbed by the planet is even more striking when one looks into the deep oceans and the change in the global heat content (Figure 4).

The ocean heat content change is from this section and Levitus et al. (2005c); glaciers, ice caps and Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets from Chapter 4; continental heat content from Beltrami et al. (2002); atmospheric energy content based on Trenberth et al. (2001); and arctic sea ice release from Hilmer and Lemke (2000).

If we had launched the Triana / DSCOVR climate satellite ten years ago, instead of mothballing it, we'd probably have robust answers to the energy budget question, and we could get the ocean heat change by calculating the (total energy change)- (atmospheric warming).

A continual cycle of heat and moisture is pulled from the tropical ocean and transported around the globe on belts of atmospheric energy.

Understanding the energy transfer to these heated atmospheric layers requires direct access to the relevant empirical data.

As for «explanations», Hank, (138) I am trying to locate one of Gavin's where I think he said that «in this context», presumably atmospheric radiation, «heat and energy are equivalent».

It is still popular nomenclature in physical oceanography and atmospheric dynamics to refer to the bodily transport of energy by a fluid as «heat transport.»

Higher temperature means more heat energy moved around in the atmospheric process.

Hypothesis A — Because the atmospheric radiation is completely absorbed in the first few microns it will cause evaporation of the surface layer, which takes away the energy from the back radiation as latent heat into the atmosphere.

There are multiple non-radiative energy fluxes at the surface (latent and sensible heat fluxes predominantly) which obviously affect the atmospheric temperature profiles, but when it comes to outer paces, that flux is purely radiative.

Of course, if you're serious about stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, achieving the American goal in 2020 is just step one in what would have to be a centurylong 12 - step (or more) program to completely decouple global energy use from processes that generate heat - trapping emissions.

Ingraham also states that the most important aspect of weatherizing your home is to receive a «post audit» by a certified energy auditor to make certain your heating appliances (boiler, furnace, atmospheric hot water heater, etc) are drafting combustable gases properly.

Damming rivers isn't necessarily the only way to extract energy from Earth's water cycle either, though practical large - scale alternatives would require real new technologies like artificial high - altitude reservoirs, or latent heat extractors like the atmospheric vortex ideas.

To obtain realistic simulations, it was found necessary to include additional energy sources and sinks: in particular, energy exchanges with the surface and moist atmospheric processes with the attendant latent heat release and radiative heat inputs.

johnmarshall says: July 18, 2013 at 7:02 am «The main atmospheric gasses, O2 and N2 are heated by the kinetic transfer of energy from the GHG's.

The main atmospheric gasses, O2 and N2 are heated by the kinetic transfer of energy from the GHG's.

It rises till it emits energy to lower energy dense regimes above — they strap a big cooling fin to the top in the computer of course, the heat is washed / radiated off into the room and beyond; and in the storm system the heat is given off toward higher atmospheric regions and ultimately space

there IS a need for a NET energy transfer FROM the atmosphere TO the ocean, if we are to accept the climastrologists» explanation for the «missing» atmospheric heat.

The fact that it is the climastrologists themselves, not me, who claim a net energy transfer FROM the atmosphere, TO the oceans (to explain their «missing» atmospheric heat), has been addressed in the following posts:

The primary purpose of this web site is to make people more aware of the enormous energy production potential of atmospheric upward heat convection.

Carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor, and a few other atmospheric gases trap heat energy and maintain Earth's temperature range.

«You have more evaporation, more energy, more heat and that's driving more moisture from the tropics which is where these atmospheric rivers originate,» Lynn Ingram, a professor of Earth and Planetary Science at the University of California, Berkeley, told IBT.

For as much as atmospheric temperatures are rising, the amount of energy being absorbed by the planet is even more striking when one looks into the deep oceans and the change in the global heat content (Figure 4).

«because T&G failed to demonstrate that the pot on the stove example is a valid analogy for the earth, they failed to falsify the atmospheric greenhouse effect» G and T, as they are more commonly known, make the obvious point that a (massive) increase in energy absorption will cool the pot, not heat it.

The identified atmospheric feedbacks including changes in planetary albedo, in water vapour distribution and in meridional latent heat transport are all poorly represented in zonal energy balance model as the one used in [7] whereas they appear to be of primary importance when focusing on ancient greenhouse climates.

«To better monitor Earth's energy budget and its consequences, the ocean is most important to consider because the amount of heat it can store is extremely large when compared to the land or atmospheric capacity,» said Yan.

CO2 is an IR - reactive molecule, converting incoming radiant daytime IR energy to kinetic temperature energy thereby heating the surrounding N2 / O2 (non-IR reactive) atmospheric gases.

In the heat - energy balance, which describes the gain or loss of heat in the system, sketched in figure 5, the solar and atmospheric radiation terms dominate.

The evolution of global mean surface temperatures, zonal means and fields of sea surface temperatures, land surface temperatures, precipitation, outgoing longwave radiation, vertically integrated diabatic heating and divergence of atmospheric energy transports, and ocean heat content in the Pacific is documented using correlation and regression analysis.

Here are just some of the many benefits that these systems provide all at once: green infrastructure absorbs and sequesters atmospheric carbon dioxide (C02); filters air and water pollutants; stabilizes soil to prevent or reduce erosion; provides wildlife habitat; decreases solar heat gain; lowers the public cost of stormwater management infrastructure and provides flood control; and reduces energy usage through passive heating and cooling.

The surface temperature response, T, to a given change in atmospheric CO2 is calculated from an energy balance equation for the surface, with heat removed either by a radiative damping term or by diffusion into the deep ocean.

Not all at once of course, but as mentioned above, when the PDO goes positive, we can likely expect a significant change in the atmospheric heat content as heat energy is transferred from the deep oceans back into the atmosphere.

Other evidence [which I will present in future articles] seems to indicate that these same climate models are NOT realistically simulating such factors as atmospheric water vapour, clouds, solar energy fluctuations and cosmic ray effects, Earth's changing geomagnetic field, and Earth's interior heat with consequent surface heat variations.

This vapor is often moved by atmospheric circulation vertically and horizontally to cooler locations where it is condensed as rain or is deposited as snow releasing the heat energy stored within it.

Until or unless the planetary body is at the same temperature as deep space there will always be energy input at the bottom of the atmospheric column (and a temperature gradient) and there will always be heat loss by radiation (or some other means like boiling off of the atmosphere) at the top of the column.

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.

But it is surely also true that an atmosphere warmed at its base by conduction will transmit that heat throughout the atmospheric column, maintaining its temperature and lapse rate, yet with most of the molecules in that column having the same kinetic energy (the same heat, but not the same temperature).

If the only way atmospheric gases could lose energy is by conductive contact with the night surface, tropospheric convective circulation would stall and our atmosphere would heat dramatically.

Effect on atmospheric ozone of U.V. Effect on sea surface biology of U.V. Effect on ocean kinematics of solar variation — not all solar energy ends up as heat.

Today Earth is out of balance because increasing atmospheric gases such as CO2 reduce Earth's heat radiation to space, thus causing an energy imbalance, as there is less energy going out than coming in.

What is ACTUALLY happening now is that the atmospheric greenhouse effect is getting stronger; and at the same time the circulations of water and air and heat and cloud and so on around the globe are going on their merry chaotic way, meaning that we are going to have unpredictable short term variations while there is a continual flow of heat into the ocean from the energy imbalance between what is being emitted and what is being absorbed.

Since to me (and many scientists, although some wanted a lot more corroborative evidence, which they've also gotten) it makes absolutely no sense to presume that the earth would just go about its merry way and keep the climate nice and relatively stable for us (though this rare actual climate scientist pseudo skeptic seems to think it would, based upon some non scientific belief — see second half of this piece), when the earth changes climate easily as it is, climate is ultimately an expression of energy, it is stabilized (right now) by the oceans and ice sheets, and increasing the number of long term thermal radiation / heat energy absorbing and re radiating molecules to levels not seen on earth in several million years would add an enormous influx of energy to the lower atmosphere earth system, which would mildly warm the air and increasingly transfer energy to the earth over time, which in turn would start to alter those stabilizing systems (and which, with increasing ocean energy retention and accelerating polar ice sheet melting at both ends of the globe, is exactly what we've been seeing) and start to reinforce the same process until a new stases would be reached well after the atmospheric levels of ghg has stabilized.

Are they stating that much of the atmospheric heat is due to absorption of insolation from the sun and conducted energy from the surface, vs absorption of LWIR from the surface?

I did not read that «the idea that gravity by itself can create a permanent gradient of temperature in an atmosphere» other then the idea that atmospheric density by itself creates greater heat capacity, thus a longer residence time for energy to saturate while insolation continues unabated.

The underlying global equilibrium temperature is set not by GHGs but by solar shortwave input to the oceans and atmospheric pressure (which sets the energy value of the latent heat of vaporisation).