Sentences with phrase «from radiative equilibrium»

A sharp change in lapse rate will (absent sharp changes in optical thickness per unit distance, which occurs at TOA and at the surface even in wavelength bands dominated by well - mixed gases) tend to differ from radiative equilibrium — the inflection point may correspond to a maximum deviation from radiative equilibrium if the radiative equilibrium profile has some intermediate lapse rate in that vicinity.

APE produced from kinetic energy may take the form of temperature variations that are farther from radiative equilibrium, and thus may be destroyed by differential radiative heating.

Not exact matches

Using global climate models and NASA satellite observations of Earth's energy budget from the last 15 years, the study finds that a warming Earth is able to restore its temperature equilibrium through complex and seemingly paradoxical changes in the atmosphere and the way radiative heat is transported.

If you doubled CO2 and let the system come into equilibrium, the imbalance you'd measure from space would be zero — but there would still be about 4 W / m ** 2 of radiative forcing from the change in CO2.

To say it a bit worse but in modern lingo: to maintain radiative equilibrium, the planet has to put out a certain amount of heat, and if it can't radiate it out from the surface, the lower atmosphere somehow has to get warmer until there's some level that radiates the right amount.

The fact that there is a natural greenhouse effect (that the atmosphere restricts the passage of long wave (LW) radiation from the Earth's surface to space) is easily deducible from i) the mean temperature of the surface (around 15ºC) and ii) knowing that the planet is roughly in radiative equilibrium.

To understand climate change, it is necessary to know the radiative forcings that drive the climate system away from its reference equilibrium state.

The differential heating imposed on the troposphere + surface layer is sufficient that LW emissions from within the layer are not able to establish pure radiative equilibrium without having the temperature profile become unstable to convection.

Starting from an old equilbrium, a change in radiative forcing results in a radiative imbalance, which results in energy accumulation or depletion, which causes a temperature response that approahes equilibrium when the remaining imbalance approaches zero — thus the equilibrium climatic response, in the global - time average (for a time period long enough to characterize the climatic state, including externally imposed cycles (day, year) and internal variability), causes an opposite change in radiative fluxes (via Planck function)(plus convective fluxes, etc, where they occur) equal in magnitude to the sum of the (externally) imposed forcing plus any «forcings» caused by non-Planck feedbacks (in particular, climate - dependent changes in optical properties, + etc.).)

In this case the CO2 concentration is instantaneously quadrupled and kept constant for 150 years of simulation, and both equilibrium climate sensitivity and RF are diagnosed from a linear fit of perturbations in global mean surface temperature to the instantaneous radiative imbalance at the TOA.

Yup, but by definition as we add greenhouse gasses, we depart from equilibrium, so the processes do not cancel and there is a net flow of energy from radiative to kinetic.

We consider the Earth without an atmosphere and calculate an temperature on the basis of a radiative equilibrium -LSB-...] Then we obtain nearly 255 K and state that the difference between this value and the mean global temperature amounts to 33 K. Unfortunately, this uniform temperature of the radiative equilibrium has nothing to do with the mean global temperature derived from observations -LSB-...] ``

This is where 255 K comes from for the equilibrium radiative temperature, where.367 would give only around 249 K.

I am more interested in the temperature of earth + atmosphere as observable from space, as that is the temperature determined by radiative equilibrium adn for which we have comparative data for other planets.

And the gut feeling by IPCC is everything from a walk in the park to catastrophe: «The equilibrium climate sensitivity quantifies the response of the climate system to constant radiative forcing on multi - century time scales.

However there is no law that says radiative transfers have to balance, in fact we know from the law of conservation of energy that this isn't the case: a solar panel has no radiative equilibrium because the incoming radiation is converted into heat.

[Equilibrium] climate sensitivity is defined as the increase in global mean surface temperature (GMST), once the ocean has reached equilibrium, resulting from a doubling of the equivalent atmospheric CO2 concentration, being the concentration of CO2 that would cause the same radiative forcing as the given mixture of CO2 and other forcing Equilibrium] climate sensitivity is defined as the increase in global mean surface temperature (GMST), once the ocean has reached equilibrium, resulting from a doubling of the equivalent atmospheric CO2 concentration, being the concentration of CO2 that would cause the same radiative forcing as the given mixture of CO2 and other forcing equilibrium, resulting from a doubling of the equivalent atmospheric CO2 concentration, being the concentration of CO2 that would cause the same radiative forcing as the given mixture of CO2 and other forcing components.

The net result is that the planet self controls, reducing CO2 climate sensitivity for purely radiative equilibrium from ~ 0.85 K to near zero.

According to model experiments and consistent with data from past climate changes, this inertia results in a lag of several decades between the imposition of a radiative forcing and a final equilibrium temperature.»

I was responding to someone who was using an equation that represents a temp differential from one equilibrium state to the next, based on additional radiative forcing.

Anything by which we could delay the radiative output for a while, up to a new equilibrium, with constant input from the sun, would suffice (Q - out < Q - in).

In all of these simple models, we assume the atmosphere to have a volume as fixed as a bathtub, we assume that the atmosphere / ocean system is a closed system, we assume that the incoming radiation from the Sun is constant, we assume no turbulence, we assume no viscosity, we assume radiative equilibrium with no feedback lag, we take no account of water vapor flux assuming it to be constant, no change in albedo from changes in land use, glacier lengthening and shortening, no volcanic eruptions, no feedbacks from vegetation.

Similarly, the climate scenarios were based on 2xCO2 equilibrium GCM projections from three models, where the radiative forcing of climate was interpreted as the combined concentrations of CO2 (555 ppm) and other greenhouse gases (contributing about 15 % of the change in forcing) equivalent to a doubling of CO2, assumed to occur in about 2060.

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.

There is never a state of instantaneous radiative energy transport equilibrium at the TOA, so these assertions must refer to some kind of quasi-equilibrium, again over some as yet un-specified time period, in which there are some degrees of departure from equilibrium with both net incoming or net out - going states.

You should say that radiative plus latent plus convective plus conductive from ocean to air can not exceed the sun's 168 W / m2 plus DLR assuming the system is in equilibrium.

The Planck response of 1.2 K for GCMs comes from one - dimensional radiative convective equilibrium models (1DRCM) that assume the fixed lapse rate of 6.5 K / km (FLRA) and use the mathematical method of Cess (1976), equation (3).

Anander, If the radiation changes rapidly, what you say is true, but it does not take long for the uppermost tens of meters to reach an equilibrium and in the equilibrium the heat transfer from the surface to atmosphere (and space) must equal the radiative heating.

Net UP IR in any wavelength interval from the Earth's surface in radiative and convective equilibrium with the atmosphere is the vector sum of UP and DOWN fluxes in the opposing emission spectra.

Once radiative equilibrium is reestablished, this is a very helpful picture because we have just shifted the altitude higher from which the earth radiates but have kept the same temperature which means the surface must be warmer because it is connected by the lapse rate.

The cause of the BB radiation is obviously the energy from the source mediated by the BB Absorbtivity and Emissivity (which at certain wavelengths will be equal once radiative equilibrium is reached)

You get higher temperature because to get the required thermal equilibrium, you need more radiative flux from the Earth's surface.

This is a consequence of the fact that radiative equilibrium in a gravity - bound atmosphere results in a top - heavy hydrostatic instability, as rigorously shown from first principles by the eminent Swiss astrophysicist / meteorologist Emden nearly a century ago.

For that point on the surface of the earth to stop heating up (equilibrium) the radiative energy emitted by that point in a 24 hour period must therefore exceed the radiative energy it absorbed from the sun in that 24 hour period.

... he realized the extreme complexity of the temperature control at any particular region of the earth's surface, and also that radiative equilibrium was not actually established, but if any substance is added to the atmosphere which delays the transfer of low temperature radiation, without interfering with the arrival or distribution of the heat supply, some rise of temperature appears to be inevitable in those parts which are furthest from outer space.

You did not show, that the atmospheric Kirchhoff law is not valid, you did not show that the virial concept is not applicable for the atmosphere, you did not show that the Su = OLR / f radiative equilibrium rule is not valid, you did not show that NOAA R1 dataset is wrong, you did not show that the TIGR 2 dataset is wrong, you did not show that Su - OLR is not equal to Ed - Eu, you did not show that (Su - OLR) / Su is not 1/3, and you did not show a single article (peer reviewed) where the global average tau is different from 1.87.

Equation -LCB- 6.1 -RCB- is defined for the transition of the surface - troposphere system from one equilibrium state to another in response to an externally imposed radiative perturbation.

From thermal equilibrium (radiative forcing relatively zero including natural variation) for the past 10,000 years (Holocene), since the beginning of the Industrial age, the earth climate system is currently estimated to be 3.6 W / m2 positively charged (GHG's, and -2.0 W / m2 negatively charged (aerosols).

An albedo decrease of only 1 %, bringing the Earth's albedo from 30 % to 29 %, would cause an increase in the black - body radiative equilibrium temperature of about 1 °C, a highly significant value, roughly equivalent to the direct radiative effect of a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration.

The Earth has been in equilibrium with internal heat production from radiative decay (and a very tiny contribution from tidal heating) since long before the Cambrian.

From its heritage from 1D radiative - convective models of the earth's atmosphere, the IPCC AR4 WGI Section 2.2 describes the concept of determining the change in equilibrium surface temperature from radiative forcing (From its heritage from 1D radiative - convective models of the earth's atmosphere, the IPCC AR4 WGI Section 2.2 describes the concept of determining the change in equilibrium surface temperature from radiative forcing (from 1D radiative - convective models of the earth's atmosphere, the IPCC AR4 WGI Section 2.2 describes the concept of determining the change in equilibrium surface temperature from radiative forcing (from radiative forcing (RF):