Sentences with phrase «equilibrium temperature closer»

Just like anything else, the temperature of the earth approaches that equilibrium temperature closer and closer over time.

Not exact matches

Some may even still have magma oceans today, whether because they are so close to their stars that silicate vaporizes at the equilibrium temperatures or through massive greenhouse warming of their surfaces.

So, if you have two identical glass greenhouses with thermally isolated mercury thermometers at equilibrium in the sunlight [One with Air at Press =P, and the 2nd w / CO2 at Press =P], and you close the blinds — you will see the thermometer in the CO2 greenhouse retain its temperature longer — not because of any «global warming» type effect, but simply because Air conducts heat to the walls of the greenhouse better than Air does.

So, if you have two identical glass greenhouses with thermally isolated mercury thermometers at equilibrium in the sunlight [One with Air at Press =P, and the 2nd w / CO2 at Press =P], and you close the blinds — you will see the thermometer in the CO2 greenhouse retain its temperature longer — not because of any «global warming» type effect, but simply because Air conducts heat to the walls of the greenhouse better than CO2 does.

Radiative equilibrium at small LW optical thickness occurs when the whole atmosphere has a temperature such that the Planck function is about half of that of the surface (a skin temperature), whereas at larger LW optical thicknesses, the equilibrium profile has a signficant drop in the Planck function through the atmosphere, approaching half the OLR value at TOA and approaching the surface value towards the surface — of course, convection near the surface will bring a closer match between surface and surface - air temperatures.

The surface budget must close just like the top - of - atmosphere balance does at equilibrium, but the surface temperature will still be dragged along by the top of atmosphere energy budget.

Lake Superior surface temperature was 41 F, pretty close to the 40 F temperature water column equilibrium allowing more surface freezing; although, Lake Superior being so much larger and deeper having a lot more heat energy stored, usually slower to freeze over completely.

Nor does saying it's the rise in Earth's temperature resulting from suddenly doubling atmospheric CO2 and waiting for convergence to sufficiently close to equilibrium.

As long as the AAL is a closed loop and kept independent of the Solar Diabatic Loop (SDL) then system equilibrium is maintained however high the surface temperature might rise.

Adding CO2 does increase the adsorption of IR in a closed cell and the temperature must go up to until the IR emission equals the absorption at a new equilibrium.

I agree that reduction in snow or ice cover resulting from warming constitutes a likely slow positive feedback, but its magnitude may be quite small, at least for the modest changes in surface temperature that can be expected to arise if sensitivity is in fact fairly low, so the Forster / Gregory 06 results may nevertheless be a close approximation to a measurement of equilibrium climate sensitivity.

Another basic principle is that as you add energy to a closed water - ice system in equilibrium, it's temperature doesn't change until the ice is all melted.

However, once equilibrium is as close as it can be then theoretically, re-radiation should occur at night, or at the point when the temperature goes down, and presumably this is where the greenhouse effect should be felt the most — yet matter emits heat very quickly — and quickly thermalise to new temperatures, so as not to give off that much radiation.

We are not here dealing with a closed system whereby energy flows between two materials at different temperatures until they each arrive at an equilibrium with each other.

But, at least to first - order, why can we usefully adopt a top - of - atmosphere (TOA) perspective to determine surface temperature, even though the surface energy budget must also close in equilibrium (and which includes many different non-radiative terms)?

In a closed oven it will of course come to the equilibrium temperature inside the oven, but this involves conduction and convection and not radiation as long as no other gases are present.

So temperatures in both cases react pretty much the same on a change, and this the 2 start situations must have been close to an «equilibrium».

But, it can warm the air close to the ground, if the air is cooler, and does do that if that very energy just bounces around locally in the air maintaining equilibrium and equipartition, and this is what normally happens (really it is thermalization and re-emission from the GHGs), in your room, on your patio, in a field, on the ocean, its just it can never raise the temperature greater than the local surface itself is.