Sentences with phrase «increasing opacity»

The long - term trends identified in the reanalyses and the OLR measurements are nevertheless consistent with the notion of increasing opacity for IR light, elevation of the OLR emission level, and convective activity.

By increasing the opacity of the star's atmosphere, light radiating outwards from the hotter, inner regions of the star is absorbed, and only light coming from the outer, cooler layers of the star escapes.

Apparently the protein in the water increases the opacity and indelibility of the ink.

This increased opacity means less energy escapes to space for a given temperature.

Absorption of thermal radiation cools the thermal spectra of the earth as seen from space, radiation emitted by de-excitation is what results in the further warming of the surface, and the surface continues to warm until the rate at which energy is radiated from the earth's climate system (given the increased opacity of the atmosphere to longwave radiation) is equal to the rate at which energy enters it.

In the absence of ozone, there would be no well - defined stratosphere, but what we now call the stratosphere would also warm due to its increased opacity, and an increased upward flux from below in the CO2 wavelengths.

Basically, what happens, I would argue, is that increased opacity raises the height of the «stratospheric» radiating layer.

It wouldn't be the warming of the troposphere which cools the stratosphere but the lapse rate combined with the increased opacity in the CO2 bands.

While I'm commenting, I want to agree with Patrick above that as long as there is a solar absorber, there will be conditions permitting increased opacity in a grey gas atmosphere to result in stratospheric cooling.

Within the stratosphere, each layer will warm (to a declining extent with altitude) because of the increased opacity combined with the increase in the upwelling radiation.

It's possible that there are processes that act so as to fully cancel out the increased opacity or more (leading to zero or negative sensitivity), but it's not obvious that this should be the case, nor can we show that it is from the basic physics.

Increased opacity means that some IR energy that would otherwise have escaped to space is retained (either thermalised or re-radiated back into the Earth system).

This much is true, and the only way that this imbalance will be eliminated will be for the Earth to heat up sufficiently that the rate at which thermal radiation is emitted will compensate for the increased opacity of the atmosphere to thermal radiation.

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.

That is, the Normal operating of the system would be this: When you increase the opacity of the system to IR, you expect (and it was predicted) that the system would run hotter.

Therefore, if absorbed solar radiation is a constant, F will also tend towards a constant and so G will increase if T increases due to increased opacity in the atmosphere.

The increased overturning can explain a slowdown in the global warming, and the association between these aspects can be interpreted as an entanglement between the greenhouse effect and the hydrological cycle, where reduced energy transfer associated with increased opacity is compensated by tropospheric overturning activity.

Greenhouse gases affect the atmospheric optical depth for infrared radiation, and increased opacity implies higher altitude from which earth's equivalent bulk heat loss takes place.

Not exact matches

«But I would say opacity in government increases the risk for corruption.

In high mass main sequence stars, the opacity is dominated by electron scattering, which is nearly constant with increasing temperature.

More greenhouse gases increase atmosphere opacity.

I'm wearing three coats here, and while the opacity increased a bit, it's still very sheer and pale.

X-rays of the chest of a heartworm - infected cat may show an increased width of the pulmonary arteries and focal or diffuse opacities in the lungs.

Findings include increased mediastinal soft tissue opacity with or without tracheal narrowing, variable amounts of pleural effusion, and patchy pulmonary infiltrates.

This in turns implies we may have underestimated how much the opacity to long wave radiation has increased.

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).

There are an ever increasing number of these «indirect effects», but the two most discussed are the aerosol / cloud opacity interaction (more aerosols provide more sites for water to condense in clouds, thus cloud droplets are smaller and clouds become more opaque), and the cloud lifetime effect (smaller droplets make it more difficult to make drops big enough to rain, and so clouds live longer).

But, the altitude at which that radiation is emitted has to increase because there is more greenhouse gas opacity up there.

As a result, for this grey opacity model, the surface temperature can continue increasing (as LW TAU is increased) until the Planck surface radiation starts spilling into the solar part of the spectrum.

Note also that the added LW opacity due to the CO2 increase will have little effect in the troposphere where convective energy transport is active.

Re my own comment # 369 above, a correction: Not only will the effective radiating temperature of the «stratosphere» described there decrease when opacity increases, as stated, but so will the skin temperature, with both now located at higher altitudes.

The main points of that solution are to show that (1) for making temperature increase with height, it's not enough to have a stratospheric absorber; you need one with the right vertical profile, and (2) you can get stratospheric cooling in response to increased IR opacity because you get rid of more of the absorbed solar locally.

Rather, as opacity increases due to increased CO2 or other ghgs, the stratospheric temperature deviates more and more from the radiating temperature in the stratosphere for the opaque region.

Then as atmospheric opacity TAU is increased (doubled CO2, and beyond), the surface temperature Ts can increase essentially without bound as LW TAU is increased (assuming no change in SW albedo, Te will stay fixed).

With the LW opacity of the atmosphere increased to infinity, we then have -LSB-(Ts) ** 4 = 2 * (Te) ** 4, so that Ts = 303K.

Opacity added to a radiative layer increases the temperature differential across the layer.

Tt is not the temperature of the «stratosphere» but rather the effective temperature at which radiation is emitted to space from the «stratosphere», and the two diverge more and more as opacity is increased.

The collapse of the Sc clouds occurs because, as the free - tropospheric longwave opacity increases with increased CO2 and water vapor concentrations, the turbulent mixing that is driven by cloud - top radiative cooling weakens, and therefore is unable to maintain the Sc layer.

back radiation does nt warm the surface, the increase in opacity slows the rate of cooling.

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.

I suppose some numbers would help, like increase of CO2 by 100 ppm, increases IR opacity by blah, raises photosphere altitude by blah.

E.g. radiative balance, increased atmospheric opacity to IR, back radiated etc..

The atmosphere's opacity increases so that the altitude from which the Earth's radiation is effectively emitted into space becomes higher.

However, it is much easier to figure out what happens when you add more radiative gases to an atmosphere that already has them: And, the answer is that it increases the IR opacity of the atmosphere, which increases the altitude of the effective radiating level and hence means the emission is occurring from a lower - temperature layer, leading to a reduction of emission that is eventually remedied by the atmosphere heating up so that radiative balance at the top - of - the - atmosphere is restored.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and for a given increase in opacity the outgoing radiation to space will decrease at a given temperature (which has been observed in studies of radiant spectra).

The radiative impact of a decrease in cloud cover on the surface net flux can be offset or even canceled if cloud opacity increases by 5 % -10 %.

The altitude from which the lapse rate is suspended is increased with more carbon dioxide because the atmosphere is optically thick where there is carbon dioxide opacity up to a higher altitude.

Whereas the added opacity will act to restrict the flow of radiative energy transport, convection will not allow the temperature gradient to increase.

«The increase in opacity due to a doubling of CO2 causes [the characteristic emission level ZC] to rise by ~ 150 meters.

The explanation for why Z T254K changes as a response to increasing IR opacity of the atmosphere is that emissions from a constant height will to a greater degree become re-absorbed when the air becomes increasingly opaque at or above this level.