Sentences with phrase «because radiative cooling»

In the far northern latitudes there's not much surface area so the error probably doesn't mean much but then again when water vapor is frozen out of the atmosphere the so - called IR window gets a lot bigger and fewer clouds closing it back up means the error might be significant because radiative cooling efficiency is drastically increased in very cold clear sky.

Not exact matches

But the troposphere can still warm with an increased radiative cooling term because it is also balanced by heating through latent heat release, subsidence, solar absorption, increased IR flux from the surface, etc..

As for your question about hurricanes, the argument given for the global mean hydrological cycle doesn't apply to the hurricane because the global mean argument assumes an equilibrium between radiative cooling and latent heat release.

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.

«Above about 50 km in altitude, the ozone heating effect diminishes in importance because of falling ozone concentrations, and radiative cooling becomes relatively more important.

The moon example was to illustrate that with radiative heat transfer, cooler objects can transfer heat to warmer ones, because heat outflux is solely dependent on the temperature and material properties of the radiator.

The collapse of the Sc clouds occurs because, as the free - tropospheric longwave opacity increases with increased CO2 and water vapor concentrations, the turbulent mixing that is driven by cloud - top radiative cooling weakens, and therefore is unable to maintain the Sc layer.

It's because both land and ocean surfaces are heated by shortwave solar radiation and where aerosols reflect SWR equally well over land or water and where greenhouse gases work by retarding the rate of radiative cooling which is not equal over land and water.

The water vapor cooled the Earth, the snow cooled the atmosphere with resulting increase in surface albedo which does reflect radiative heat, meaning the Earth gets less warm, not colder because of it.

The stratosphere cools with more CO2 because up there, the radiative decay rate is faster than the collisional decay.

Absent radiative warming it will still warm through conduction and convection and it will cool radiatively because all matter above absolute zero radiates and I'm pretty sure the nitrogen in our atmosphere is matter and it has a temperature above absolute zero therefore it radiates a continuous black body spectrum characteristic of that temperature.

Inside the Arctic the big factor is sea ice extent because that makes a huge difference by blocking radiative and evaporative cooling and not conducting particularly well either.

For instance the earth's global ocean already has an albedo close to zero so greenhouse gases are limited there and because GHGs modus operandi is restricting radiative cooling and the ocean is still free to cool evaporatively there is no first order significant effect of greenhouse gases over a liquid ocean.

The issue which debunks climate science is its radiative greenhouse effect violating basic thermodynamics, not whether the atmosphere retains heat overnight because it doesn't have time to cool to 2.7 K.

But anyway, we know none of the back radiation penetrates more than about 10 microns (because it is actually pseudo scattered and only slows radiative cooling) so to what temperature can the Sun's radiation warm that 20 metres of the ocean?

Because of their critical role in radiating energy to space and driving convective circulation, radiative gases act to cool our atmosphere at all concentrations above 0.0 ppm.

Because of a lack of radiative cooling at height and a lack of strong vertical convective circulation, a non radiative atmosphere would be dramatically hotter than our current atmosphere.

None of the Annan / Hargreaves priors go below zero, and while this may be physically realistic it does not allow for the fact that the observational data generate negative sensitivities, mostly because of ocean cycle warming and cooling effects that the radiative forcing estimates do not take into account.

This period has been widely studied because the radiative forcings and boundary conditions are relatively well known and because the global cooling during that period is comparable with the projected warming over the 21st century.

Because the only way for the earth to cool is by radiative output into space, and because of the present heat content, we have stored energy in the billions of years behBecause the only way for the earth to cool is by radiative output into space, and because of the present heat content, we have stored energy in the billions of years behbecause of the present heat content, we have stored energy in the billions of years behind us.

It is not the infrared emission that cools the surface as in the so - called radiative equilibrium models because the net radiative heat transfer surface to air is about nil, but the evaporation whose thermostatic effect can not be overstated: increasing the surface temperature by +1 °C increases the evaporation by 6 %; where evaporation is 100 W / m ², this removes an additional 6 W / m ² from the surface.

I pointed out that cooler objects do not warm warmer objects because the net radiative heat transfer would be negative and because it would imply that the cooler object spontaneously loses entropy without doing any work.

So the daytime radiative heating of the ocean isn't followed by radiative cooling at night because water is quite opaque to IR.