Sentences with phrase «latent heating rate»

«The central approximation of the derivation is to relate the eddy latent heating rate (or more precisely ω ↑ «-RRB- to the eddy vertical velocity»

Not exact matches

If someone has good references addressing the related changes in these two rates of flow (H2O and latent heat) in our dynamic atmosphere (round Earth rotating on a tilted axis while revolving around the sun — and having a surface that is 70 % H2O, with other areas land but «not dry») I would like to see them.

All I have proposed is the possibility that a small (1C or less) increase in global mean temp or a doubling of CO2 concentration will raise the rate of latent heat transport...

All I have proposed is the possibility that a small (1C or less) increase in global mean temp or a doubling of CO2 concentration will raise the rate of latent heat transport and possibly increase the cloud cover, especially during the hottest time of the year in each region.

Because latent heat release in the course of precipitation must be balanced in the global mean by infrared radiative cooling of the troposphere (over time scales at which the atmosphere is approximately in equilibrium), it is sometimes argued that radiative constraints limit the rate at which precipitation can increase in response to increasing CO2.

If surface temperatures spike, and the ground is wet, evaporation rates increase, reducing the temperature by latent heat transfer.

In the tropics which are prone to deep convection, the water vapor response to warmer temperature also promotes a less steep lapse rate owing to latent heat effects.

One of the best lines in the post was, «Energy is also transferred through vertical motion (convection), evaporation, and condensation too (latent heat), but that doesn't affect this picture, as they all act to restore the vertical structure toward the hydrostatically stable lapse rate in the long run.»

Energy is also transferred through vertical motion (convection), evaporation, and condensation too (latent heat), but that doesn't affect this picture, as they all act to restore the vertical structure toward the hydrostatically stable lapse rate in the long run.

Additionally, the distortions of the lapse rate in ascent are greater than for CO2 because water vapour is lighter than air and contains more energy in latent form which heats the air around it when condensation occurs during uplift.

When the water reaches freezing point, it starts releasing latent energy, which then increases the rate of heat flow from the freezing water, both to the unfrozen water and to the air.

If the air temperature starts rising then the rate of heat flow from the water to the air slows down and the water consequently stops freezing, so the latent energy falls and so the temperature tends to stabilize at that point.

If all else were equal besides the latent heat of fusion of water which were negligible, we would have a dramatically different planet and you would never see anything resembling a moist adiabatic lapse rate.

The current confusion about the thermal behaviour of the Earth system is that no one seems to realise that the rate of conversion to and fro between the latent heat of phase changes and potential energy during adiabatic uplift and descent is variable with any forcing element other than mass, gravity or insolation.

Heat (not latent heat) is removed prior to condensation by conversion of kinetic energy to potential energy which then provokes condensation and when the phase change occurs the release of latent heat causes the air parcel to rise a little further with additional conversion of KE to PE until it reaches the correct lapse rate temperature for its height and then it stops rising and begins to descHeat (not latent heat) is removed prior to condensation by conversion of kinetic energy to potential energy which then provokes condensation and when the phase change occurs the release of latent heat causes the air parcel to rise a little further with additional conversion of KE to PE until it reaches the correct lapse rate temperature for its height and then it stops rising and begins to descheat) is removed prior to condensation by conversion of kinetic energy to potential energy which then provokes condensation and when the phase change occurs the release of latent heat causes the air parcel to rise a little further with additional conversion of KE to PE until it reaches the correct lapse rate temperature for its height and then it stops rising and begins to descheat causes the air parcel to rise a little further with additional conversion of KE to PE until it reaches the correct lapse rate temperature for its height and then it stops rising and begins to descend.

What on earth does «The latent heat of condensation is the reason for the lowering of the moist adiabatic lapse rate» mean?

Since insulation does not supply any heat energy but merely slows down the rate at which heat energy is transmitted through it; there is no heat generated to supply the 80cal / gm of latent heat of fusion necesary to melt ice so the oly possible sources for this heat are the sun and geothermal heat transfer.

The implication that a modicum of ocean heat is needed to initiate a hurricane needs to be backed up by some back - of - envelope equations that convey heat transfer functions, latent heat, circulation rates etc., to show that the hot ocean is capable to transferring enough heat into a storm to make a difference.

We do not need models to anticipate that significant rises in atmospheric CO2 concentrations harbor the potential to raise temperatures significantly (Fourier, 1824, Arrhenius, 1896), nor that the warming will cause more water to evaporate (confirmed by satellite data), nor that the additional water will further warm the climate, nor that this effect will be partially offset by latent heat release in the troposphere (the «lapse - rate feedback»), nor that greenhouse gas increases will warm the troposphere but cool the stratosphere, while increases in solar intensity will warm both — one can go on and on

In brief, the temperature profile of the atmosphere is set by convection & latent - heat considerations (= > adiabatic lapse rate); based upon that temperature profile, the radiative transfer processes give rise to the radiative forcing which is the GHE.

Ice melts a lot faster in water at 10 °C than in air at 20 °C because of energy transfer rates, plus warmer air ascends and melting requires a lot of latent heat.

The dynamics of the system are governed by the lapse rate which is «anchored» to the ground and whose variations are dependent not only on convection, latent heat changes and conduction but also radiative transfer.

Above this level (i.e. inside the cloud), the latent heat that is released when condensation occurs reduces the rate of cooling to about 6 °C per kilometre.

«Lapse «rate»» is a restatement of the «Barometric formula,» but contains the both the «kinetic» portion and a «potential» (latent heat) portion as well.

The cooling rate depends on all the fluxes, including also conductive / convective, latent heat, and back - radiation from the atmosphere.

And with condensation, it's usually the rate of removal of latent heat.

Since latent heat transport (and surface cooling of the ocean) must increase in proportion to the rate of evaporation, perhaps Wentz et al have identified a reason why the models appear to overstate climate sensitivity: the actual latent cooling increases by about 4 watts per square meter more than the models predict for each degree rise in surface temperature.

The rate of heat transfer by radiation and latent heat increases as the temperature at the top decreases given the assumption of constant water surface temperature.

However, as the water vapor rises the lapse rate means that the volume of air cools and eventually the water vapor condenses into water droplets and then into ice latent heat is given off to the surrounding air at each of these phase changes, with two effects.

Warmer water surfaces from extra downwelling infra red can not cause warming of the ocean bulk because the rate of evaporation increases proportionately to the extra energy available and the latent heat of evaporation is then taken mostly from the water.It is then no longer available to warm the ocean bulk.

They find that the different moisture availability over land and ocean leads to different atmospheric temperature lapse rates (latent heat release), which in combination with a well - mixed free (above boundary layer) atmosphere can explain the land — sea contrast.

What's lacking in the efficiency rating for the unvented gas appliance is the latent heat of the water vapor.

Earth's climate system has not stopped accumulating energy over the past years, but ocean - atmosphere cycles (mainly a cool PDO) have slowed the rate of flow of latent and sensible heat from ocean to atmosphere.

Another way describing the latent heat effect is that increasing CO2 will not change the dry adiabatic lapse rate but it does change the saturated adiabatic lapse rate.

But even without GHGs the atmosphere must be rather warm (the dry adiabatic lapse rate is one lower limit, sensible heat and latent heat is another reason).

An increased rate of evaporation and convection will move the additional energy at the surface to a higher layer in the atmosphere and because evaporation carries energy in what's called «latent heat» there will be no measurable rise in temperature near the surface as thermometers measure what's called «sensible heat».

One of the key insights in Lindzens 2001 adaptive iris hypothesis, the others being the latent heat left at altitude upon water vapor condensation thanks to convection and the temperature lapse rate, and the lowering of humidity (so water vapor feedback) from the resulting precipitation.

Hence, the easiest way to figure out what is going to happen to the surface temperature is actually to look at the energy budget at the top of the atmosphere (where we know the only energy transfers are via radiation) and then to incorporate convection and latent heat transfer essentially through understanding the constraints that they set on the lapse rate.

Instead of warming the water down to a significant depth it rather serves to increase the evaporation rate and the heat is carried off the surface as latent heat of vaporization.

The 1 w / m ^ 2 latent heat essentially causes a negative feedback on the lapse rate so that the TOA remains at a roughly stable temperature.

That this pause is mainly due to a very slight slowdown in the normal rate of sensible and latent heat flux from ocean to atmosphere seem increasingly likely.

If there is, concurrently to this process, a reduction in the rate of cooling of the mixed layer to the atmosphere and to space (radiative + latent + sensible), then this will offset upwelling cooling of the mixed layers while the deeper layers will still gain heat unabated (or even at an increased rate).

But the additional water vapor will radiate heat away more quickly, having the opposite effect; however, when the temperature drops to where the water begins condensing, the latent heat released will decrease the lapse rate to the moist adiabatic lapse rate.

Judith criticises this for failing to take into account how the lapse rate might change (due to changes in latent and sensible heat flux), but why doesn't that change in lapse rate count as a feedback?

Importantly, ocean heating (including the latent heat absorbtion by ice melting), the hydrological cycle (so cloud effects and cloud cover), and lapse rates change.