Sentences with phrase «does radiation models»

OK, that's fine, he does radiation models.

Not exact matches

One of the big advantages of the approach that this paper uses is that, to decide on a strategy, evacuation officials need to consider only the radiation levels near shelters and along evacuation routes — the overall pattern of the radioactive death - cloud does not factor into the models.

«The bottom line is that we're paying a lot more attention to modeling very small accelerations, such as those exerted by solar radiation pressure, than previous missions have had to do,» said Michael Moreau, OSIRIS - REx flight dynamics system manager at Goddard.

The new monitoring data does not show which of two competing models best predicts the future concentration of Fukushima radiation along the U.S. West Coast, Smith said.

Although many say the report is well done, the exercise largely depended on modeling of radiation doses rather than on direct measurements of population exposures, and the data were often sub-optimal.

In Figure 1, I use the NCAR radiation model, and don't make any assumption about the apparent sky emittance.

Is the suns radiation still increasing over what it was in the past and do the climate models take this into account?

eBM models organ - level marrow toxicity responses and protective effects of radiation countermeasure drugs, whereas conventional bone marrow culture methods do not.

I understand the general principle that more atmospheric CO2 reflects more IR radiation back to earth making earth warmer, but I want to know how do the models calculate the temperature rise.

Does the model accurately reproduce some basic phenomena that happens in the real world when you change the GHG, or the aerosols, solar radiation, or ice albedo?

It used to be (pre 1995) that most radiation models in GCM's only had CO2 and water vapor, so one had to translate, say, methane, into CO2 radiative equivalent just to do the calculation.

If the models don't reflect such differences in radiation balance between the hemispheres, then there is something wrong with the models... But globally, the oceans are warming (much) faster in the NH than in the SH...

Finally I attempt a suggestion that perhaps one solution to the problem that the solar impact on climate is underestimated by models might be because EBM and GCM, like GISS, do not contain CO2 and CH4 cycle mechanisms that might be partially effected by the Sun, and other mechanisms are missing or uncertain (water vapor, cloud cover, vegetation, bacteria respiration, UV radiation, cosmic ray effects etc.).

I should provide the missing viewpoints, for instance those who argue that the LNT [«Linear No Threshold» model of radiation risk] underestimates the risk at low doses, and I should provide the reasons that BEIR VII did not accept this view, showing that BEIR VII takes a middle ground.

Question: Do modellers of radiation effects on the Earth's atmosphere utilise this type of spectral information when building their models?

Trude Storelvmo of Yale University and her colleagues did not use climate models to find out the answer, but they based their calculations on temperature and solar radiation records taken from more than thousands of global measurement sites over the course of 46 years.

Convection and conduction can not be neglected like it is done in all radiation transfer models.

But the models do not represent the earth by every square mm of land surface albedo, but by grid - scale averages — but note that the 4th power radiation from a mean albedo will almost never equal the radiation from the detailed actual surface.

I don't think he's predicting a mini ice age, but he is adamant that the assumptions about climate sensitivity to CO2 built into the climate models are wrong and the models grossly understate the importance of cosmic radiation.

When Alarmists say that ENSO's short term effects must balance to zero over the long run they are doing a priori science using the assumptions of the «radiation - only» model.

So he examines satellite data and finds that the radiation doesn't conform to model predictions.

It is impossible to know what this figure would give in a realistic moving, scattering and humid atmosphere without running a whole convection / radiation model what I have of course not done.

Given that cosmic radiation and sun spots are known to greatly effect the Earth's climate by a much larger degree than CO2, but these effects are not understood well enough to include in climate models, why the hell do these climate models get approval for being the defacto word of the Green God?

I don't believe either one has done much in the area of radiation modeling.

Once a GCM has cycled for several hundred «years» (and do they model the «solar year» with it's changing radiation and incidences, or only the «average» entire year?)

I wonder if these models recognize the loss of atmospheric water that has occurred since 1948 or do they ignore the reality and build in a water vapour feedback loop to boost the supposed backwelling radiation to the surface.

If there's no radiation from the Sun, no heat capacity in the model planet, no mass big enough to effect pressure changes («real» ideal gases which don't have mass), nothing much is happening because there's no movement, (movement from the play of hot and cold volumes as hot gases rise and cold sink, becoming less dense and gaining density), but,

Do GCM's «create» cold fronts and the arctic air flows when they run, or are they «static» heat exchange models only (radiation received and radiation released are obviously their «drivers»... But what happens after the air masses have been «driven» for the equal of one or two «years» — do we see flows in the tropics, mid-latitudes, and polar latitudes than resembles earth's circulatioDo GCM's «create» cold fronts and the arctic air flows when they run, or are they «static» heat exchange models only (radiation received and radiation released are obviously their «drivers»... But what happens after the air masses have been «driven» for the equal of one or two «years» — do we see flows in the tropics, mid-latitudes, and polar latitudes than resembles earth's circulatiodo we see flows in the tropics, mid-latitudes, and polar latitudes than resembles earth's circulation?

So, which models are we talking about, and what values do they show when it comes to hindcasting and forecasting OHC, TOA net SW radiation, TOA net LW radiation and changing lapse rate?

I don't know whether this variability of the atmosphere's opacity to incoming solar radiation is included in the climate models (presumably it is?)

The models didn't correctly predict changes in outgoing radiation, or the humidity and temperature trends of the upper troposphere.

Truth n ° 14 The outgoing longwave radiation from the upper atmosphere is larger than what models say: there is no «blanket» effect du to Greenhouse gases

«This H2O negative - feedback effect on CO2 is ignored in models that assume that warm moist air does not rise and form sunlight - reflecting clouds, but remains as humid air near sea level, absorbing infrared radiation from the sun, and approximately doubling the temperature rises predicted from atmospheric CO2 increases.

Of course, it is as Willis says «a tinkertoy model» and there are various ways to make it somewhat more realistic (e.g., by having the shells be graybodies that don't absorb all the IR radiation but let some of it through).

I don't know how the climate models can reconcile their prediction of a 4.2 watt / metre ^ 2 increase in the tropopause radiation results in a 3.0 C increase in surface temperatures (and a new surface radiation level of 406.5 watts / metre ^ 2).

(2) I don't think the statement, «Among the other insights yielded by the model is that a change equivalent to a doubling of CO2 (an increase of 3.7 W / m2 downwelling radiation at the top of the atmosphere) can be cancelled by a 1 % increase in the upper and lower cloud reflections» is correct.

Perhaps the model results do open a door for Arctic geoengineering approaches though, for instance by influencing Arctic Ocean salinity and heat transport or through Arctic solar radiation management.

However, if the model doesn't contain mistakes, at least I have provided more support for Hypothesis C — that the back radiation absorbed in the very surface of the ocean can change the temperature of the ocean below, and demonstrated that Hypothesis B is less likely.

The emissivity and absorptivity of the ocean are set to 1, there are no ocean currents, the atmosphere doesn't heat up and cool down with the ocean surface, the solar radiation value doesn't change through the year, the top layer was 5 mm not 1μm, the cooler skin layer was not modeled, a number of isothermal layers is unphysical compared with the real ocean of continuously varying temperatures..

The model also does not take into account dust and water in the form of clouds which both hold great quantities of CO2 and which takes it directly and quickly into the carbon life cycle at ground level and uses it up and none of this directly absorbed solar radiation is taken into account in the model.

Note: this Website does not cover developments from the 1980s forward in radiation models, a matter of increasingly sophisticated technical detail.

structure can be observed / calculated, so this is just a simplification and can be called «parametrization» (as done with radiation in some models according to RC, much to my disapproval).

It is assumed that all the solar radiation from relevant absorption band makes it to the CO2 boxes through all the other boxes and does this constantly with no loss and if it did the model might be correct, as it is there are tens of thousands of other boxes between each CO2 box so the absorption and the storing and the re emitting of this narrow band can not be total or anywhere near total and the incoming source is not constant nor does all all the solar radiation actually make it the CO2 boxes, it would only be a proportion the rest being intercepted and dissipated beforehand.

«how it is supposed to work» = according to non-real-world theoretical models that say CO2 molecules that are spaced together 1/20, 000 ths more closely today than they were in 1990 function just like a blanket draped over the ocean waters, and this CO2 blanket determines the net heat changes in the depths of the ocean more so than variations in direct shortwave radiation absorption does.

The «radiation only» equilibrium models do not address the other issue that the layers of the surface and atmosphere can warm at different rates because they have a different mix of cooling mechanisms.

If we hold everything else equal and double the amount of N2 in the atmosphere, because N2 does not participate in the back radiation, the surface equilibrium temperature should remain «unchanged» according to the radiative transfer model.

When scientists model radiation from the earth atmosphere to space, what temperature do they use for the temperature of space on the dark side of the planet?

Not too surprised at the PNAS thing either - however their radiation map doesn't seem to mesh with the exposure we've been experiencing in Yamagata - ken, then again - they do say their program doesn't model regional Japanese well.

You could divide up the geography into numerous cells, each with numerous layers of atmosphere; you could divide up the time into many small steps, and work out the dynamics of air masses in a refined way; you could make complex calculations of the transfer of radiation through the air; you could construct detailed models for surface effects such as evaporation and snow cover... but you could not do all these at once.

The original NASA model doesn't go to zero at night because the Apollo landing site always sees radiation from the Earth.