Sentences with phrase «increased atmospheric radiation»

Not exact matches

«The amount of visible radiation entering the lower atmosphere was increasing, which implies warming at the surface,» says atmospheric physicist Joanna Haigh of Imperial College London, who led the research, published in Nature on October 7.

So the mechanism should cause a decline in skin temperature gradients with increased cloud cover (more downward heat radiation), and there should also be a decline in the difference between cool skin layer and ocean bulk temperatures - as less heat escapes the ocean under increased atmospheric warming.

A compilation of surface measurements of downward longwave radiation from 1973 to 2008 find an increasing trend of more longwave radiation returning to earth, attributed to increases in air temperature, humidity and atmospheric carbon dioxide (Wang 2009).

The whole issue is that any level above what is often called the «effective radiating level» (say, at ~ 255 K on Earth) should start to cool as atmospheric CO2 increases, since the layers above this height are being shielded more strongly from upwelling radiation... except not quite, because convection distributes heating higher than this level, the stratosphere marks the point where convection gives out and there is high static stability.

As the atmospheric opacity is increased (e.g., 2xCO2), the physical location of the TAU = 1 level will rise to a higher altitude, but the outgoing flux will still come from the TAU = 1 level since radiation doesn't care about the geometric scale), and the TAU = 1 level will still correspond to the same temperature (since the solar input energy is unchanged).

Since seawater absorption is nonzero at many wavelengths, increased atmospheric back - radiation due to a heightened greenhouse gases would inevitably warm the ocean, just as it warms the land.

Such proximity introduces hazards that are of negligible importance for life on Earth: increased exposure to (time - varying) short wavelength radiation, stronger magnetic fields, tidal effects, and atmospheric removal by the stellar wind.

I'm no atmospheric scientist and haven't really considered the stratospheric cooling issue but, if an increase in the amount of atmospheric CO2 raised the average altitude from which the stratosphere receives radiation in the CO2 bands, wouldn't it receive less radiation in those bands?

The haze reduced the seasonal average solar radiation absorbed by the equatorial Indian ocean by as much as 30 to 60 W m − 2 during September to November 1997, and increased the atmospheric solar heating by as much as 50 % to 100 % within the first 3 kilometers.

Refering to bands where optical thickness is constant over the interval of each band, if the atmospheric LW absorption is limited to some band (that doesn't cover all LW radiation), than increases in OLR in response to surface warming will occur outside that band, so OLR will drop within the band — there will still be some portion of stratospheric or near - TOA cooling that will be transient, but some will remain at full equilibrium.

Of course, there are plenty of negative feedbacks as well (the increase in long wave radiation as temperatures rise or the reduction in atmospheric poleward heat flux as the equator - to - pole gradient decreases) and these (in the end) are dominant (having kept Earth's climate somewhere between boiling and freezing for about 4.5 billion years and counting).

Considering also that Northern Hemispheric cooling in 1940 — 70 is attributable to the «global dimming» effect of increasing sulfate aerosols, the sulfate cooling effect is, again, felt more strongly in Greenland, and indirectly via altered atmospheric dynamics not via local radiation budget modification.

Glacial periods give way to interglacials on some occasions when the Northern Hemisphere's summer solar insolation (the amount of solar radiation received by Earth's surface) increases alongside corresponding decreases in ice volume and increases in temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2).

So we can blame the sun for the Holocene period, but even though solar radiation has increased right along with the temperature in the 20th century, we are assuming that the warming is due to the minute increase of atmospheric CO2 from humans?

Increased atmospheric CO2 tends to close this window and cause outgoing radiation to emerge from higher, colder levels, thus warming the surface and lower atmosphere by the so called greenhouse mechanism»

As a greenhouse gas, this increase in atmospheric CO2 increases the amount of downward longwave radiation from the atmosphere, including towards the Earth's surface.

«It is possible that an increase in concentration of atmospheric gases which absorb the outgoing infrared radiation could result in a rise in average global temperature,» William McCollam, Jr., then president of EEI, admitted to Congress in 1989.

Thus a change of water vapour, sky radiation and tempcrature is corrected by a change of cloudiness and atmospheric circulation, the former increasing the reflection loss and thus reducing the effective sun heat.

i) The total exchange of radiation between Space and the TOA and between surface and the TOA is sufficiently large that an increase in the radiative capabilities of an atmospheric constituent that amounts to 0.04 % of the atmosphere would appear unlikely to have any significant effect.

However, it's simple enough to argue (not conclusively) that the the «null» hypothesis should be a postive effect rather than zero: our understanding of atmospheric physics predicts that adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases its clear - sky opacity to certain bands of IR radiation.

Surface measurements of downward longwave radiation A compilation of surface measurements of downward longwave radiation from 1973 to 2008 find an increasing trend of more longwave radiation returning to earth, attributed to increases in air temperature, humidity and atmospheric carbon dioxide (Wang 2009).

Leaf area index, which is also enhanced by increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide, was the second most important factor, contributing an additional 21.8 percent, followed by climate change (precipitation and air temperature together) and the fraction of photosynthetically active radiation, which accounted for the remaining 18.3 and 14.6 percent increase in NPP, respectively.

The power of the surface radiation increases by the Stefan - Boltzmann law until it (over time) compensates for the atmospheric absorption.»

Conversely, as atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, chlorofluorocarbons, and other absorbing gases continue to increase, in large part owing to human activities, surface temperatures should rise because of the capacity of such gases to trap infrared radiation.

Traditional anthropogenic theory of currently observed global warming states that release of carbon dioxide into atmosphere (partially as a result of utilization of fossil fuels) leads to an increase in atmospheric temperature because the molecules of CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) absorb the infrared radiation from the Earth's surface.

Since then, satellite reading of temperatures and the occlusion of numerous infrared bands, ground based, aircraft and balloon measurements of same, and an ever - increasing data base of the optical properties of CO2 (and other gases, like water vapour), have helped refine radiation calculations towards determining the atmospheric heat budget.

And that to use it as an example or reason why we are thus NOT affecting the earth through a multi million year change in long lived atmospheric greenhouse gases — which absorb and re radiate thermal radiation, slowly increasing the energy balance of the earth — is irrational.

A compilation of surface measurements of downward longwave radiation from 1973 to 2008 find an increasing trend of more longwave radiation returning to earth, attributed to increases in air temperature, humidity and atmospheric carbon dioxide (Wang 2009).

1 Positive 1.1 Carbon cycle feedbacks 1.1.1 Arctic methane release 1.1.1.1 Methane release from melting permafrost peat bogs 1.1.1.2 Methane release from hydrates 1.1.2 Abrupt increases in atmospheric methane 1.1.3 Decomposition 1.1.4 Peat decomposition 1.1.5 Rainforest drying 1.1.6 Forest fires 1.1.7 Desertification 1.1.8 CO2 in the oceans 1.1.9 Modelling results 1.1.9.1 Implications for climate policy 1.2 Cloud feedback 1.3 Gas release 1.4 Ice - albedo feedback 1.5 Water vapor feedback 2 Negative 2.1 Carbon cycle 2.1.1 Le Chatelier's principle 2.1.2 Chemical weathering 2.1.3 Net Primary Productivity 2.2 Lapse rate 2.3 Blackbody radiation

Since atmospheric WV is expected to increase as a result of higher temperatures, the «WV - enhanced» greenhouse effect should cause some of the solar radiation that would otherwise reach the Earth's surface (in the absence of the enhanced GH effect) to be absorbed in the atmosphere, where that energy can perhaps be more easily lost to space (the complexity of the climate system permitting).

During dimming (1950s — 80s) the decline in surface solar radiation (SSR) may have outweighed increasing atmospheric downwelling thermal radiation (LW) from enhanced greenhouse gases and effectively counteracted global warming, causing only little increase in surface thermal emission (LW).

It is true that the greenhouse effect theory is based on experimental observations, e.g., a) the different infra - red properties of the atmospheric gases; b) the infra - red nature of the Earth's outgoing radiation and c) the observation that fossil fuel usage is increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

During dimming (1950s — 80s) the decline in surface solar radiation (SSR) may have outweighed increasing atmospheric downwelling thermal radiation (LW

He showed that atmospheric absorption of long - wave radiation was constant for 61 years while at the same time carbon dioxide increased by 21.6 percent.

Are you saying that because he uses a LTE model with atmospheric layers to explain carbon dioxide IR radiation (and re-radiation), that he is implying that one should find non-smooth temperatures with increasing height in such layers?

An increase in Solar radiation can create it just as effectively as an increase in atmospheric CO2 does.

Today Earth is out of balance because increasing atmospheric gases such as CO2 reduce Earth's heat radiation to space, thus causing an energy imbalance, as there is less energy going out than coming in.

Yet on these sites (and in the media, and even by a few semi related scientists who kinda keep an eye on the issue or are semi involved) treat it as if it is some sort of both immediate, and linear, contemporaneous correlation between increased lower level atmospheric re radiation, and increased (or changed) global ambient air temperatures, which is absurd, and belies any real deep understanding of the actual issue.

Since to me (and many scientists, although some wanted a lot more corroborative evidence, which they've also gotten) it makes absolutely no sense to presume that the earth would just go about its merry way and keep the climate nice and relatively stable for us (though this rare actual climate scientist pseudo skeptic seems to think it would, based upon some non scientific belief — see second half of this piece), when the earth changes climate easily as it is, climate is ultimately an expression of energy, it is stabilized (right now) by the oceans and ice sheets, and increasing the number of long term thermal radiation / heat energy absorbing and re radiating molecules to levels not seen on earth in several million years would add an enormous influx of energy to the lower atmosphere earth system, which would mildly warm the air and increasingly transfer energy to the earth over time, which in turn would start to alter those stabilizing systems (and which, with increasing ocean energy retention and accelerating polar ice sheet melting at both ends of the globe, is exactly what we've been seeing) and start to reinforce the same process until a new stases would be reached well after the atmospheric levels of ghg has stabilized.

The amount of CO2 gas warming observed is theoretically logarithmically proportional to the increase in atmospheric CO2 times the amount of long wave radiation that it emitted to space prior to the increase.

Greenhouse gas concentrations affect the atmospheric optical depth for infrared radiation, and increased opacity implies higher altitude from which earth's equivalent bulk heat loss takes place without being re-absorbed.

While actual scientists are trying to piece together every little part of an otherwise almost un-piecable long term chaotic and variable system in response now to a massive increase in net lower atmospheric energy absorption and re radiation, Curry is busy — much like most of the comments on this site most of the time — trying to come up with or re-post every possible argument under the sun to all but argue against the basic concept that radically altering the atmosphere on a multi million year basis is going to affect the net energy balance of earth, which over time is going to translate into a very different climate (and ocean level) than the one we've comfortably come to rely on.

«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.

The biggest increase in background radiation levels world wide was during the peak of atmospheric weapons testing during the 1960s raising the level by about 5 %.

The researchers, led by Berkeley Lab scientists, measured atmospheric carbon dioxide's increasing capacity to absorb thermal radiation emitted from the Earth's surface over an eleven - year period at two locations in North America.

The researchers, led by scientists from the US Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab), measured atmospheric carbon dioxide's increasing capacity to absorb thermal radiation emitted from the Earth's surface over an eleven - year period at two locations in North America.

The only direct real - world inputs to these models, in a climate change simulation context, are changes in atmospheric chemistry and composition (such as increasing greenhouse gases, or changing volcanic aerosols) and changes in solar radiation.

And this process is not linear, as the processes resultant from a net ongoing energy change due a massive increase in external input (a multi million year change — increase — in lower atmospheric thermal radiation absorption and re radiation, in the sense of our geologically recent evolved «temperate» earth climate and global energy balance is massive) is not linear.

The 3.7 W / m ^ 2 estimated from simulations for the increase in «radiative forcing» from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 — does the 3.7 W / m ^ 2 represent a reduction in the atmospheric window or does it represent the half directed down due to isotropic re - radiation / redistribution (meaning a reduction in the atmospheric window of 7.4 W / m ^ 2)???

Even if this hypothesis was at first founded upon assumptions for the absorption of carbon dioxide which are not strictly correct, it is still an open question whether an examination of the «protecting» influence of the higher atmospheric layers upon lower ones may not show that a decrease of the carbon dioxide will have important consequences, owing to the resulting decrease in the radiation of the upper layers and the increased temperature gradient at the earth's surface.