Sentences with phrase «lower atmospheric heating»

Not exact matches

On a global scale, the heating of atmospheric molecules causes the lower atmosphere, or troposphere, to expand and stretch higher during the day; it then settles back down as it cools at night.

That said, the efficiency of the atmospheric heat engine is rather low; from time to time, inefficiency causes the disparity between the warm source and the cold sink to increase.

James McCarthy, professor of biological oceanography at Harvard, says this summer's record heat and dryness could have occurred with lower atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations — but it would have been highly unlikely.

That heated surface air then rose into the atmospheric boundary layer — the lowest level of the troposphere — doubling its height to more than 4 kilometers, and creating a thick blanket of heat.

The basic scenario goes as follows: Hurricanes — circular storms spinning around a region of low atmospheric pressure — are powered by energy released by spiraling surface winds that draw heat from the ocean.

The corona is heated to millions of degrees, yet the lower atmospheric layers like the photosphere — the visible surface of the Sun — are only heated to a few thousand degrees.

the Arctic has shown a pattern of strong low - level atmospheric warming over the Arctic Ocean in autumn because of heat loss from the ocean back to the atmosphere....

Moreover, the seasonal, regional, and atmospheric patterns of rising temperatures — greater warming in winters than summers, greater warming at high latitudes than near the equator, and a cooling in the stratosphere while the lower atmosphere is warmer — jibe with what computer models predict should happen with greenhouse heating.

We found that atmospheric brown clouds enhanced lower atmospheric solar heating by about 50 per cent.

Evaluating ocean and atmospheric observations with advanced modeling tools, scientists from NOAA and CIRES found that about 60 percent of 2016's record warmth was caused by record - low sea ice observed that year, and the ensuing transfer of ocean heat to the atmosphere across wide expanses of ice - free or barely frozen Arctic Ocean.

It rises till it emits energy to lower energy dense regimes above — they strap a big cooling fin to the top in the computer of course, the heat is washed / radiated off into the room and beyond; and in the storm system the heat is given off toward higher atmospheric regions and ultimately space

If this heat were instantly trans - ferred to the lower 10 km of the global atmosphere it would result in a volume mean warming of this atmospheric layer by approximately 36 C (65 F).

However, because climate scientists at the time believed a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would cause a larger global heat imbalance than today's estimates, the actual climate sensitivities were approximatly 18 % lower (for example, the «Best» model sensitivity was actually closer to 2.1 °C for doubled CO2).

Instead, land surface models were originally developed to provide lower boundary fluxes of momentum, heat and water for existing atmospheric models.

DK12 used ocean heat content (OHC) data for the upper 700 meters of oceans to draw three main conclusions: 1) that the rate of OHC increase has slowed in recent years (the very short timeframe of 2002 to 2008), 2) that this is evidence for periods of «climate shifts», and 3) that the recent OHC data indicate that the net climate feedback is negative, which would mean that climate sensitivity (the total amount of global warming in response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels, including feedbacks) is low.

Francis, who wasn't involved with either study, is one of the main proponents of an idea that by altering how much heat the ocean lets out, sea ice melt and Arctic warming can also change atmospheric circulation patterns, in particular by making the jet stream form larger peaks, or highs, and troughs, or lows.

If atmospheric heat transported from lower latitudes was the major driver, more warming would be expected at greater heights.

It follows that an atmospheric composition of about 8 % methane gives one 360 - 430 degrees of heating, with a fainter sun and a slightly lower albedo.

The cryosphere derives its importance to the climate system from a variety of effects, including its high reflectivity (albedo) for solar radiation, its low thermal conductivity, its large thermal inertia, its potential for affecting ocean circulation (through exchange of freshwater and heat) and atmospheric circulation (through topographic changes), its large potential for affecting sea level (through growth and melt of land ice), and its potential for affecting greenhouse gases (through changes in permafrost)(Chapter 4).

Here are just some of the many benefits that these systems provide all at once: green infrastructure absorbs and sequesters atmospheric carbon dioxide (C02); filters air and water pollutants; stabilizes soil to prevent or reduce erosion; provides wildlife habitat; decreases solar heat gain; lowers the public cost of stormwater management infrastructure and provides flood control; and reduces energy usage through passive heating and cooling.

If this heat were instantly transferred to the lower 10 km of the global atmosphere it would result in a volume mean warming of this atmospheric layer by approximately 36 C (65 F).»

Even though radiation from the troposphere is much slower, the heat is much more widely distributed; a lot of it is moved over what would have been much cooler ground — it isn't just low level atmospheric heat transport that matters.

This study examined the warming effects of the Asian Brown Cloud and concluded that «atmospheric brown clouds enhanced lower atmospheric solar heating by about 50 per cent.»

Wait until next week when we find out that atmospheric CO2 molecules exchange tachyon particles so that heat absorbance today heats the air in the future, which explains why we have hidden heat, a pause and why climate sensitivity appears to be lower than the 8.73 degrees it really is.

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.

However, because climate scientists at the time believed a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would cause a larger global heat imbalance than is currently believed, the actual climate sensitivities were approximatly 18 % lower (for example, the «Best» model sensitivity was actually closer to 2.1 °C for doubled CO2).

Next, we can't live much more than a mile down (heat) and how high up we can live is limited by atmospheric pressure (too low).

The Atlantic is the small basin surrounded by low - heat - capacity continents (and an Arctic Ocean that is «continental» for most of the year from an atmospheric perspective), so it has higher amplitude and thus higher leverage on stats, including hemispheric & global ones.

They found that an atmospheric exchange of surface heat drives the greatest temperature fluctuations in reefs located in shallow, low - tide waters.

Since any increase in solar energy would heat both the lower and upper atmosphere, the observed drop in upper atmospheric temperatures in the past 30 years argues against an increase in energy coming from the sun being responsible for global warming.

Radiation at ultraviolet wavelengths dissociates atmospheric molecules, initiating chains of chemical reactions — specifically those producing stratospheric ozone — and providing the major source of heating for the middle atmosphere, while radiation at visible and near - infrared wavelengths mainly reaches and warms the lower atmosphere and the Earth's surface1.

Your comment seems to rest upon the strange and magical concept that each atmospheric molecule of a low - specific - heat gas (such as argon) lives in its own little parallel universe and does not interact (collide) with neighbouring molecules of other types.

Scientific confidence of the occurrence of climate change include, for example, that over at least the last 50 years there have been increases in the atmospheric concentration of CO2; increased nitrogen and soot (black carbon) deposition; changes in the surface heat and moisture fluxes over land; increases in lower tropospheric and upper ocean temperatures and ocean heat content; the elevation of sea level; and a large decrease in summer Arctic sea ice coverage and a modest increase in Antarctic sea ice coverage.

The shrinking of sea - ice in the eastern Arctic causes some regional heating of the lower levels of air — which may lead to strong anomalies in atmospheric airstreams, triggering an overall cooling of the northern continents, a study recently published in the Journal of Geophysical Research shows.

Radiation does NOT keep heat statically in the lower levels where it builds up without this intervening pumping of air to the upper atmospheric layers.