Sentences with phrase «effect on convection»

You suggest I'm saying «you appear to be saying that (for some reason) the increase in temperature of the top few microns due to a (hypothetical) increase in DLR will have zero effect on the convection from below.»

Some had regions of minimum warming in the North Atlantic and Ross Sea due to positive feedbacks: a local effect on convection in the Ross Sea and a non-local impact on the meridional circulation in the North Atlantic.

Earlier I pointed out that it could / should be better to specifically block solar IR, or in particular those wavelengths absorbed by H2O vapor, other gases and clouds, in the troposphere, rather than block all solar wavelengths indiscriminately (because selective shading could reduce the effect on convection and precipitation — caveats about cloud and H2O distribution... etc.).

However, model physics process representations that are supposed to account for the eddy moisture transport effects on convection significantly underestimate them compared to simulations that explicitly resolved eddy moisture transport without using convective representations.

Not exact matches

By comparison, conventional saunas must rely only on indirect means of heat: first, on convection (air currents) and then, conduction (direct contact of hot air with the skin) to produce its heating effect.

Effect of different air / steam convection cooking methods on turkey breast meat: Physical characterization, water status and sensory properties.

On closer examination, however, this disagreement appears to be the recorded part of a sometimes heated dialogue between experts in a rapidly developing field as they try out a new way of parameterizing some part of the problem (such as the effects of moist convection), or as they parameterize a previously specified quantity (such as snow cover).

So really it's the gain of the temperature - convection feedback that's at stake, and if it were high enough to fully offset all radiative effects on temperature, there'd be some obvious symptoms — low natural variability and glacial cycles perfectly correlated with insolation perhaps.

The only process that one could argue is minimally effected by CO2 is — the RATE of heat transfer from the Earth's surface — but with convective / conductive energy / mass transfer as the controlling mechanism — it would be immediately acted on by increased convection anyway — because Earth isn't surrounded by a glass bowl now is it — NO — just the cold depths of space!

The mechanism by which the effect of oceanic variability over time is transferred to the atmosphere involves evaporation, conduction, convection, clouds and rainfall the significance of which has to date been almost entirely ignored due to the absence of the necessary data especially as regards the effect of cloudiness changes on global albedo and thus the amount of solar energy able to enter the oceans.

Increased evaporation and convection must have some effect on the global air circulation.

The impossible AGWSF Greenhouse Effect world does not have any atmosphere at all, it goes straight from the surface to its imagined empty space with the imaginary ideal gases without mass zipping around at great speeds miles apart from each other, so it has no convection because it has no real gas for gravity to work on.

The same principle explains why a blanket or thick jacket keeps you warm on a cold day better than a thin one (assuming no wind, which adds the cooling effect of convection to that of radiation).

Since the poles are on the central cylinder of thermal convection (here Dr. Pratt may have misunderstood Hide and Dickey work, to which I've been referring in my posts for some time now, widely discussed on the web with another researcher of the «LOD - climate - solar effects» Paul Vaughan), it takes about 15 years for disturbances to propagate to the equatorial cylinder of thermal circulation, etc....

AGWSF's Greenhouse Effect doesn't have convection because it doesn't have real gases, it has substituted the imaginary ideal gas without properties and processes, but our real Earth's atmosphere does have convection — the heavy ocean of real fluid gas oxygen and nitrogen weighing a ton on our shoulders, a stone per square inch, acts like a blanket around the Earth stopping the heat escaping, compare with the Moon which has extreme swings of temperature.

We have the gravito thermal effect acting in water exactly (more or less) contrary to its effect in gas, even though water is capable of convection, advection and so on.

So an electric heater (or a light) bulb essentially has an infinite thermal diffusivity and rock has a lower (i.e. slower) thermal diffusivity than any gases in the atmosphere (even without considering convection) so there is no thermal insulator effect going on in the atmosphere, as you correctly point out; «See them GHG's over there, they AI N'T NO INSULATOR....

In discussion with Roy Spencer a year or so ago he agreed that this plus plain old thermal convection was very important, but it seems that everyone is competing on the radiative effects, last I looked.

Your accusation of «ignorance» on my part about the «buffering» effects of a thermalized air mass is as amusingly misplaced as your ideas about what convection does throughout the diurnal cycle.

The «unnatural» warming so far seen is however trended strongly to the alterations to the planetary surface by Humanity over the past 400 years and the rebalance towards greater kinetic induction (in its cumulative effect) is now producing observable alterations not only to the Land Surface median Temperature, but to the Ocean (vie conduction / convection) and a still unconfirmed claim of a small overall rise in Median Atmospheric Temperature, which if «true» would place the Planetary Biosphere on the «Human Population Plot» with regard to «warming».

Over large areas the addition of so much water vapor does have regional effects on temp, convection and precip.

It is essentially the result of a balance between (a) the stabilizing effect of upward heat transport in moist and dry convection on both small and large scales and (b), the destabilizing effect of radiative transfer.

The real explanation for the spread of scent of course is basic convection in a fluid medium, with the different weights and effects of the actual scent molecules which is alchohol and water, the alchohol having a triggering effect on water at the surface making it even lighter than air than it usually evaporates.

(This is also the reason, why the warming of real greenhouses is based essentially on stopping convection rather than on the radiative greenhouse effect, which is in them too weak to observe.)

Clouds and condensation are the balancing outgoing delivery mechanism of heat on this planet, and overwhelm the radiative effect with convection, and as a bonus also block incoming radiation, especially in the tropics, leading to a natural, self regulating thermostat effect.

The non-radiative effects (convection) and phase changes carry more heat into the upper atmosphere where there is a greater chance for energy to be radiated directly to space, less chance of radiative interaction with molecules on the way out.

% DLR and solar forcing on the ocean % to investigate the impact if DLR does and doesn't heat the ocean % this version to look at solar heating below the surface and its effect % % v2 considers convection if temperature inversion occurs % v3 looks at heat flows to compare changing heat flow for changing DLR % and changing solar % also tries to improve the algorithm (v3.2) by reducing the vector to % a manageable size and just retaining hourly figures instead of every % second.

This runs to ~ 90 pages, the first 40 of which are devoted to proving that real greenhouses rely on cutting off convection rather than differential radiation effects!

The physics that must be included to investigate the moist greenhouse is principally: (i) accurate radiation incorporating the spectral variation of gaseous absorption in both the solar radiation and thermal emission spectral regions, (ii) atmospheric dynamics and convection with no specifications favouring artificial atmospheric boundaries, such as between a troposphere and stratosphere, (iii) realistic water vapour physics, including its effect on atmospheric mass and surface pressure, and (iv) cloud properties that respond realistically to climate change.

Considering them as two different black bodies, based on observation of their combined effect at the TOA without consideration of lapse rate, convection and condensation seems unlikely to provide an accurate answer.

The forcing aspect of the indirect effect at the top of the atmosphere is discussed in Chapter 2, while the processes that involve feedbacks or interactions, like the «cloud lifetime effect» [6], the «semi-direct effect» and aerosol impacts on the large - scale circulation, convection, the biosphere through nutrient supply and the carbon cycle, are discussed here.

Present global climate models (GCMs) supersede the old simple conceptual models on the greenhouse effect, some of which include radiative - convection and heat balance models discussed over the period 1890 — 1980 (Arrhenius 1896; Hulburt 1931; Charney et al. 1979; Schneider and Dickinson 1974; North 1975; Wang WC and Stone P 1980).

The real greenhouse effect, no quotes needed on that, would raise the temperature of earth significantly more than 33C if it was not for convection.

We have already seen in this marathon with the 2 N's that without convection the greenhouse effect would be much larger on Earth; that being the case, given that Mars has an atmosphere almost entirely composed of the greenhouse gas CO2 and no convection, why does it have equivalent Tave and Teff if the greenhouse effect works as Arthur Smith describes?

Which is basically what I said: «The real greenhouse effect, no quotes needed on that, would raise the temperature of earth significantly more than 33C if it was not for convection.

The second issue is far more complex, namely the inter-relationship with other gases in the atmosphere and what effect it may have on the rate of convection at various altitudes and / or whether convection effectively outstrips any «heat trapping» effect of CO2 carrying the warmer air away and upwards to the upper atmosphere where the «heat» is radiated to space.