Sentences with phrase «net radiative energy»

1 - The total net radiative energy from the Sun to the Earth is approximately 239W / m ^ 2 (16W / m ^ 2 to the surface + 78W / m ^ 2 to the atmosphere) and the total net radiative energy from the Earth to space is 239W / m ^ 2 (169W / m ^ 2 +30 W / m ^ 2 + 40W / m ^ 2).

The shape of the CO2 band is such that, once saturated near the center over sufficiently small distances, increases in CO2 don't have much affect on the net radiative energy transfer from one layer of air to the other so long as CO2 is the only absorbing and emitting agent — but increases in CO2 will reduce the LW cooling of the surface to space, the net LW cooling from the surface to the air, the net LW cooling of the atmosphere to space (except in the stratosphere), and in general, it will tend to reduce the net LW cooling from a warmer to cooler layer when at least one of those layers contains some other absorbing / emitting substance (surface, water vapor, clouds) or is space)

where is the gravitational acceleration, is the net radiative energy input to the atmosphere, is the ocean heat uptake, is the north - south wind, and is the energy of an air parcel (specifically the moist static energy).

«The net radiative energy flow will be from the hotter to the colder, HOWEVER, the colder object also radiates.

where is the vertically integrated energy flux in the atmosphere, is the net radiative energy input to an atmospheric column (the difference between absorbed shortwave radiation and emitted longwave radiation), and is the oceanic energy uptake at the surface.

Not exact matches

That's far from the worst flaw in his calculation, since his two biggest blunders are the neglect of the radiative cooling due to sulfate aerosols (known to be a critical factor in the period in question) and his neglect of the many links in the chain of physical effects needed to translate a top of atmosphere radiative imbalance to a change in net surface energy flux imbalance.

«We use a massive ensemble of the Bern2.5 D climate model of intermediate complexity, driven by bottom - up estimates of historic radiative forcing F, and constrained by a set of observations of the surface warming T since 1850 and heat uptake Q since the 1950s... Between 1850 and 2010, the climate system accumulated a total net forcing energy of 140 x 1022 J with a 5 - 95 % uncertainty range of 95 - 197 x 1022 J, corresponding to an average net radiative forcing of roughly 0.54 (0.36 - 0.76) Wm - 2.»

Earth's energy balance In response to a positive radiative forcing F (see Appendix A), such as characterizes the present - day anthropogenic perturbation (Forsteret al., 2007), the planet must increase its net energy loss to space in order to re-establish energy balance (with net energy loss being the difference between the outgoing long - wave (LW) radiation and net incoming shortwave (SW) radiation at the top - of - atmosphere (TOA)-RRB-.

Victor has been told countless times that the heat content of the earth system is dependent on the net effect of all of the radiative forcings, i.e. energy in versus energy out.

Stabilizing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may stop the growth in net radiative forcing, but will not reduce the net inflow of energy (net radiative forcing) to zero.

rise is flawed & suggests one based on net (radiative) energy forcing — what do you at realclimate think about this?

This is plainly not true, as can be easily seen by computing the net radiative cooling in a radiative - convective model with a consistent surface energy budget.

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.

It looks unlikely that there is a large net difference in the radiative energy balance due to melting of Arctic Ice.»

That the radiative flux can be measured isn't relevant because only the net energy transfer is relevant.

Then, if compositional changes occur, involving changes in the net radiative balance of the entire atmosphere the climate zones will shift as the atmosphere has to work more hard or less hard to maintain top of atmosphere energy balance.

What we're talking about here is basically the amount of unrealized warming, whereas the radiative forcing tells you the total net energy imbalance since your choice of start date (the IPCC uses 1750).

However, the second law is not violated by the greenhouse effect, of course, since, during the radiative exchange, in both directions the net energy flows from the warmth to the cold.»

«the tendency to a radiative equilibrium means that the emitter with the higher surface temperature will loose energy due to a negative net radiation balance until this net radiation balance becomes zero.»

The radiative forcing (IPCC 2007) is about 1.6 W m − 2 for both carbon dioxide increases alone and also the total with all other effects included (0.6 — 2.4 as 95 % confidence limits), and the net energy imbalance of the planet is estimated (Trenberth et al. 2009) to be 0.9 ± 0.5 W m − 2.

It clearly states that (a) emission of energy by radiation is accompanied with cooling of the surface (if no compensating changes prevent it), and (b) the tendency to a radiative equilibrium means that the emitter with the higher surface temperature will loose energy due to a negative net radiation balance until this net radiation balance becomes zero.

«Because the solar - thermal energy balance of Earth [at the top of the atmosphere (TOA)-RSB- is maintained by radiative processes only, and because all the global net advective energy transports must equal zero, it follows that the global average surface temperature must be determined in full by the radiative fluxes arising from the patterns of temperature and absorption of radiation.»

«We use a massive ensemble of the Bern2.5 D climate model of intermediate complexity, driven by bottom - up estimates of historic radiative forcing F, and constrained by a set of observations of the surface warming T since 1850 and heat uptake Q since the 1950s... Between 1850 and 2010, the climate system accumulated a total net forcing energy of 140 x 1022 J with a 5 - 95 % uncertainty range of 95 - 197 x 1022 J, corresponding to an average net radiative forcing of roughly 0.54 (0.36 - 0.76) Wm - 2.»

And that the slight net radiative flux and the slight net kinetic energy flux exactly balance in opposite directions.

The longwave part of the net radiative change includes the «greenhouse effect» (i.e. the atmosphere radiating energy downward) and the longwave feedback (i.e. warmer things radiate more energy away).

This additive formula is exactly what you'd get if each radiated power proportional to T ^ 4 independently, and the net flow was simply the radiative energy flowing one way minus the radiative energy flowing the other way.

The TOA imbalance minus the net surface flux (from * all * fluxes, latent, radiative, etc.) gives the rate of change of the atmospheric energy content.

There can be situations where there is no NET radiative transfer of energy between the two bodies, but they are always going to each be radiating per the Stefan - Bolzmann equation.

Just think about the even more simplified model where there is a isotope decay heat source at the center of the earth that generates sufficient energy to have a net outward radiative flux of 235 W / m ^ 2 at the Earth's 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.

Additionally, physical phenomena and processes, driven by (1) the net energy that reaches the atmosphere and surface, (2) redistribution of energy content already within the systems, and (3) activities of human kind, directly affect the radiative energy balance from which the hypothesis was developed.

If you want a bit deeper understanding of the radiative energy flow one needs to understand that all matter above absolute zero radiates and where there are two bodies at different temperatures there's a net transfer of energy between the two from warmer to colder.

[1] Total absorbed radiation (TAR), the sum of SNR [shortwave net radiation] and LDR [longwave downward radiation], represents the total radiative energy available to maintain the Earth's surface temperature and to sustain the turbulent (sensible and latent) heat fluxes in the atmosphere.

That gravity is responsible for the 33K in unexplained heating and contrary to the assumptions of the radiative transfer model, increasing the weight of N2O2 in the atmosphere will increase the surface temperature, as more and more molecules are packed into a smaller volume, resulting in a net increase in energy per cubic meter of atmosphere at the surface, which we measure as an increase in temperature.

Therefore it is only the net energy flows which need be considered when estimating the radiative heat transfers in the diagram.

Natural or anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere induces a «radiative forcing» ΔF, defined by IPCC (2001: ch.6.1) asa change in net (down minus up) radiant - energy flux at the tropopause in response to a perturbation.

Su — Fo (= Su — OLR (= G)-RRB- represents a net upward LW energy flow in the atmosphere, (Ed — Eu)(= G) represents a net downward LW flux (as we said: Ed is the downwelling radiative heating, Eu has it energetic source in the sum of K and F).

The radiative and atmospheric responses also provide insight into how the top of atmosphere net balance of energy responds to perturbations.

He arrives at his inflated value by conflating the radiative surface warming from GHG's and clouds with the return of latent heat, thermals and solar energy absorbed by clouds and subsequently sent to the surface which are otherwise already accounted for by the net surface temperature and its consequential BB radiation.

With the successes of CERES, variability in the net radiative incoming energy at the TOA can now be measured to within 0.1 W m − 2 year − 1.