Sentences with phrase «by radiative cooling»

It happens by radiative cooling of a solid surface with good clear sky exposure in dry air.

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

The precipitation question is examined from either conserving energy in the troposphere (i.e. looking at the condensational heating term, with latent heating being balanced by radiative cooling) or at the surface (i.e. looking at the latent heating associated with evaporation).

Fog formation is a process where condensation occurs by radiative cooling, so there are processes that may do this, but these are radiation - produced clouds, not the subject of the paper in any way.

To put it a different way, a typical one - story, single - family house with just 10 percent of its roof covered by radiative cooling panels could offset 35 percent its entire air conditioning needs during the hottest hours of the summer.

Not exact matches

The model calculations, which are based on data from the CLOUD experiment, reveal that the cooling effects of clouds are 27 percent less than in climate simulations without this effect as a result of additional particles caused by human activity: Instead of a radiative effect of -0.82 W / m2 the outcome is only -0.60 W / m2.

However, global mean precipitation is controlled not by the availability of water vapour, but by a balance between the latent heat of condensation and radiative cooling in the troposphere.

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).

On the possibility of a changing cloud cover «forcing» global warming in recent times (assuming we can just ignore the CO2 physics and current literature on feedbacks, since I don't see a contradiction between an internal radiative forcing and positive feedbacks), one would have to explain a few things, like why the diurnal temperature gradient would decrease with a planet being warmed by decreased albedo... why the stratosphere should cool... why winters should warm faster than summers... essentially the same questions that come with the cosmic ray hypothesis.

In the case of Concentrated Solar Power that uses heliostats, one ought to be able to boost night time cooling by providing a low brightness temperature surface (the mirrors) to enhance radiative cooling, though the convective cooling will still dominate.

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 an analogy, if I told you that I was going to paint my white car black and that I expected it would get hotter on sunny days as a result, you would probably start asking questions about what the temperature of the paint was when I applied it and how those molecules heated up or cooled down, ignoring the relevant factor which is this: By painting the car black, I am changing the car's albedo and thus changing the radiative balance between the car and the sun on sunny days.

Another important paper of recent is by Easterling and Wehner that demonstrates that cooling on timescales of years to a decade or two are not that unusual even when the system is undergoing a long - term warming trend induced by radiative forcing.

As far as I know, if the only physical mechanism under consideration is the radiative cooling of the planet's surface (which was heated by shortwave solar radiation and reradiated at longer wavelengths in the infrared) via radiative transport, additional gas of any kind can only result in a higher equilibrium temperature.

Even parabolic troughs might run radiative cooling through pipes placed halfway between the collector vacuum pipes and the mirror surface since these pipes would see cool portions of the sky not occupied by the Sun.

It's true that there are aspects of the vertical distribution of radiative cooling that can't be controlled by adjusting the air - sea temperature difference, but I haven't seen it demonstrated that these are crucial.

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 argument isn't actually as firm a constraint as generally believed, since the infrared radiative cooling of the atmosphere is affected by the temperature difference between air and the underlying surface, which can adjust to accommodate any amount of evaporation Nature wants to dump into the atmosphere (as shown in Pierrehumbert 1999 («Subtropical water vapor...» available here)-RRB-.

In full equilibrium, at any given level, there may be some net radiative heating at some frequencies compensated by some net radiative cooling at other frequencies, with convection balancing the full spectrum radiative cooling of the troposphere and heating of the surface.

This is plainly not true, as can be easily seen by computing the net radiative cooling in a radiative - convective model with a consistent surface energy budget.

The lapse rate within the troposphere is largely determined by convection, which redistributes any changes in radiative heating or cooling within the troposphere + surface so that all levels tend to shift temperature similarly (with some regional / latitudinal, diurnal, and seasonal exceptions, and some exceptions for various transient weather events).

In the tugging on the temperature profile (by net radiant heating / cooling resulting from radiative disequilibrium at single wavelengths) by the absorption (and emission) by different bands, the larger - scale aspects of the temperature profile will tend to be shaped more by the bands with moderate amounts of absorption, while finer - scale variations will be more influenced by bands with larger optical thicknesses per unit distance (where there can be significant emission and absorption by a thinner layer).

The very pretty thermographs prove that the sensor is not affected by the local walls — sensor colour is cool -(although I am certain Mr. Watts did not normalise the radiative properties of the sensor and surface — wrecking the accuracy of this reading — e.g. a glossy surface can reflect the surrounding temperature and not the surface temp of the unit).

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.

Initially, shallow circulations driven by differential radiative cooling induce a self - aggregation of the convection into a single band, as has become familiar from simulations over idealized sea surfaces.

The US is responsible for 10 % of that, meaning the evil empire you wish to strangle is responsible for.000002 of the atmosphere being occupied by a gas that has a heavier specific gravity than air, heat and COOL S FASTER than air, has different radiative properties, is 1 / 400th of the greenhouse gasses.

It clearly states that (a) emission of energy by radiation is accompanied with cooling of the surface (if no compensating changes prevent it), and (b) the tendency to a radiative equilibrium means that the emitter with the higher surface temperature will loose energy due to a negative net radiation balance until this net radiation balance becomes zero.

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.

Consider this: The surface is cooled predominantly by non-radiative heat transfer, while on the other hand the atmosphere is cooled exclusively by radiative transfer to space.

The surface is cooled predominantly by non-radiative heat transfer, while on the other hand the atmosphere is cooled exclusively by radiative transfer to space.

The IPCC most certainly also claims water vapour warms, doing most of «33 degrees» of warming, whereas, in fact, it cools the surface by reducing the temperature gradient whilst still keeping radiative balance with the Sun.

Here we show that accounting for recent cooling in the eastern equatorial Pacific reconciles climate simulations and observations.We present a novel method of uncovering mechanisms for global temperature change by prescribing, in addition to radiative forcing, the observed history of sea surface temperature over the central to eastern tropical Pacific in a climate model.

Without radiative cooling, convection would produce a warm enough atmosphere that further convection is suppressed by the stability.

You write: «If internal variability (such a a cool PDO phase) reduces the rate of increase of surface temperature, while the e [x] ternal forcing still is increasing, this means the radiative imbalance is impeded from being cancelled by surface warming.»

If internal variability (such a a cool PDO phase) reduces the rate of increase of surface temperature, while the eternal forcing still is increasing, this means the radiative imbalance is impeded from being cancelled by surface warming.

The warm / rainy phase of a composited average of fifteen oscillations is accompanied by a net reduction in radiative input into the ocean - atmosphere system, with longwave heating anomalies transitioning to longwave cooling during the rainy phase.

The DALR is established in Earth's atmosphere by vertically moving macroscopic parcels of air driven by thermal convection between volumes and surfaces at different temperatures, temperature gradients maintained by diurnal solar forcing and continual radiative cooling.

If look look back over my comments on this thread, you will note that I repeatedly state that radiative gases can slow the cooling of land surface and by intercepting surface IR they can heat gases in the lower troposphere.

The net effect is that a lot of the radiative warming is negated by evaporative cooling.

The reason is much larger relative role of the CO2 radiative cooling compared to the NO radiative cooling under solar minimum conditions as confirmed by SABER / TIMED measurements (Mlynczak et al. 2010).

The latest catchphrase is that GHGs «slow down» the radiative heat loss by «scattering» a portion — some say half — and therefore the Earth's surfaces do not cool down as much as they would during the night as they would with less GHGs.

The reason is that for a macroscopic object such as an ordinary mercury thermometer or a spacecraft, radiative heating and cooling processes will dominate (by orders of magnitude) over convective heat transfer with the thin thermosphere.

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 behind us.

In short, Lindzen's argument is that the radiative forcing from aerosols is highly uncertain with large error bars, and that they have both cooling (mainly by scattering sunlight and seeding clouds) and warming (mainly by black carbon darkening the Earth's surface and reducing its reflectivity) effects.

Your claim proven as a theorem now means basically (with some radiative cooling at the top for the return flow) that it does not need confirmation by numerical modelling, but rather, application, to see how it plays out in real atmospheric problems.

Do you think that hotspots cool by mixing or is it primarily just radiative?

Hence all the radiative - convective «models» since Manabe (1967) which assume a «radiative cooling of the surface» and forget evaporation are baseless: 71 % of the surface of globe is covered by oceans, and an additional 20 % of the surface covered by vegetation, driving evapotranspiration.

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.