Sentences with phrase «atmospheric radiative energy»

The direct radiative forcing calculation is based on an empiric al equation derived from well - established atmospheric radiative energy transfer models and serves as a first - order proxy for global warming impact.»

Not exact matches

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.

This simple radiative example (convective transport is not being allowed) shows that any finite surface temperature Ts can be supported in radiative equilibrium with any arbitrarily cold «upper atmosphere» temperature Tt, by prescribing the appropriate LW opacity TAU for the atmospheric layer, with the energy required to maintain a fixed Ts adjusted accordingly.

The point isn't a «perpetual increase in atmospheric pressure» — that's a misnomer — if you consider the MASS of the atmosphere that is continuously «pumped» from cold air to hot air to cold air again, high up in the atmosphere — that creates «potential energy» from the kinetic energy of the convection — adiabatic expansion of the atmosphere is the result — the adiabatic compression occurs on the return trip of the previously warmed (from radiative energy) air as it completes the «cycle» as it comes back down!

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.

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 radiative absorption capability of CO2 allows atmospheric molecules to reach a higher temperature than that imparted to them by energy at the surface so they rise to a higher location than would be predicted from their weight and their individual gas constants.

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

Research published in 2008 by Arizona State University professor Peter Crozier suggests that this nanoscale atmospheric aerosol species is abundant in the atmosphere over East Asian countries and should be explicitly included in models of radiative forcing (the gap between energy radiation reaching the Earth and that leaving through the upper atmosphere).

The problem with this particular fantasy kim is that the physics of radiative transfer mean that increasing the fraction of atmospheric CO2 will cause energy to accumulate in the climate system (mainly the global ocean)-- exactly as observed.

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.

Phil The time spent by an individual molecule in a particular state is extremely small at atmospheric conditions, orders of magnitude less than the mean radiative lifetime which is why emission is extremely unlikely, and most of the energy ends up thermalized.

A comparison of the radiative equilibrium temperatures with the observed temperatures has indicated the extent to which the other atmospheric processes, such as convection, large - scale circulation, and condensation processes, influence the thermal energy balance of the system.

Would it have been so difficult to terminate the smaller atmospheric absorption arrow in the atmosphere itself and then have a separate set of arrows (both toward the surface and into space) showing the radiative energy from the atmosphere?

But is it true that «Nature will redistribute the contained atmospheric energy (using both convective and radiative processes) until each molecule, in an average sense, will have the same total energy»?

Nature will redistribute the contained atmospheric energy (using both convective and radiative processes) until each molecule, in an average sense, will have the same total energy.

It hinges on the proposition that «Nature will redistribute the contained atmospheric energy (using both convective and radiative processes) until each molecule, in an average sense, will have the same total energy.»

In other words, if the LTE assumption holds, the radiative properties of the atmospheric gases in a given «layer» can increase or decrease the average energy content of that layer relative to the others.

The TOA imbalance minus the net surface flux (from * all * fluxes, latent, radiative, etc.) gives the rate of change of the atmospheric energy content.

«Our climate simulations, using a simplified three - dimensional climate model to solve the fundamental equations for conservation of water, atmospheric mass, energy, momentum and the ideal gas law, but stripped to basic radiative, convective and dynamical processes, finds upturns in climate sensitivity at the same forcings as found with a more complex global climate model»

Our climate simulations, using a simplified three - dimensional climate model to solve the fundamental equations for conservation of water, atmospheric mass, energy, momentum and the ideal gas law, but stripped to basic radiative, convective and dynamical processes, finds upturns in climate sensitivity at the same forcings as found with a more complex global climate model [66].

Planetary atmospheric, surface, crust, mantle and core temperatures are not determined by (and can not be calculated from) radiative energy budgets.

I thought the idea was that an increase in the atmospheric radiative forcing from above would warm the skin layer a bit, reducing the temp gradient to the water layer below, thus impeding the transport of absorbed solar energy up and back out of the ocean, and thus making it pile up to increase OHC.

If you have good measurements of upper ocean and atmospheric temperatures, then if you had a good decade - long satellite record of the Earth's total radiative energy balance from space — say, if Triana has been launched to in the late 1990s — then you could use conservation of energy to calculate the rate of heat uptake by the deep ocean over the past ten years.

The radiative and atmospheric responses also provide insight into how the top of atmosphere net balance of energy responds to perturbations.

My approach in the paper (the application example in http://www.springerlink.com/content/6677gr5lx8421105/fulltext.pdf) is that we can directly use the energy conservation equation to analyze the climate feedbacks which essentially are the changes in the energy cycle of the climate system, including both the radiative feedbacks and also dynamic feedbacks (surface heat fluxes and atmospheric / oceanic energy transport feedbacks).