Sentences with phrase «of radiative equilibrium»

The atmosphere was not in a state of radiative equilibrium... temperature distribution in the atmosphere was determined almost entirely by the movement of the air up and down... One could not, therefore, calculate the effect of changing any one factor...

Net flux is a constant, by definition of radiative equilibrium there is zero heating of every layer.

For example, FWIW Wikipedia tells me that a Stevenson screen needs to be painted every two years to keep a constant high albedo so that the temperature inside is in equilibrium with air at 2 meters, and not perturbed by some sort of radiative equilibrium with SWR.

The problem of radiative equilibrium between relativistically shifted temperatures that I touched on earlier is one to which they can conveniently be applied (the aberration of light is such a spinor boost and rotation).

A comparison of the radiative equilibrium temperatures with the observed temperatures has indicated the extent to which the other atmospheric processes, such as convection, large - scale circulation, and condensation processes, influence the thermal energy balance of the system.

What is significant for the implications of climate «science» is the hypothesis of radiative equilibrium and the model used to describe the «greenhouse effect».

In the same sense that the less - than - spherical - cow version of radiative equilibrium with the Earth taken to be a black body is a simple way of communicating.

We consider the Earth without an atmosphere and calculate an temperature on the basis of a radiative equilibrium -LSB-...] Then we obtain nearly 255 K and state that the difference between this value and the mean global temperature amounts to 33 K. Unfortunately, this uniform temperature of the radiative equilibrium has nothing to do with the mean global temperature derived from observations -LSB-...] ``

Clearly Tomas has a problem with the concept of a radiative equilibrium surface temperature of 255 K, and an actual surface temperature of 288 K.

3) Under the assumption of radiative equilibrium, it can be shown that the surface temperature of a planet would slightly and non linearily increase with the concentration of IR active gases (primarily H2O) if and only if radiation was the only mean for energy transfer.

It might help Peter Huybers and his collegues if we understood more about the temperature response of the albedo of the calcite belt, and other bioogically variable components of radiative equilibrium that impact SST in both the southern ocean and the arctic seas

Not exact matches

Using global climate models and NASA satellite observations of Earth's energy budget from the last 15 years, the study finds that a warming Earth is able to restore its temperature equilibrium through complex and seemingly paradoxical changes in the atmosphere and the way radiative heat is transported.

If you doubled CO2 and let the system come into equilibrium, the imbalance you'd measure from space would be zero — but there would still be about 4 W / m ** 2 of radiative forcing from the change in CO2.

To say it a bit worse but in modern lingo: to maintain radiative equilibrium, the planet has to put out a certain amount of heat, and if it can't radiate it out from the surface, the lower atmosphere somehow has to get warmer until there's some level that radiates the right amount.

(Even for a relatively simple example of a gray medium, calculating the equilibrium temperature profile within a homogeneous slab involves a singular Fredholm integral equation of the second kind as described by M. N. Ozisik in Radiative Transfer (1973).)

For these types of radiative climate forcings the atmospheric temperature profile will be shifted basically unchanged to its new equilibrium position.

The fact that there is a natural greenhouse effect (that the atmosphere restricts the passage of long wave (LW) radiation from the Earth's surface to space) is easily deducible from i) the mean temperature of the surface (around 15ºC) and ii) knowing that the planet is roughly in radiative equilibrium.

The elevation of the atmospheric temperature is due to a shift in the radiative equilibrium, i.e. more back radiation absorbed by added gases, selective to IR radiation.

As far as I know, if the only physical mechanism under consideration is the radiative cooling of the planet's surface (which was heated by shortwave solar radiation and reradiated at longer wavelengths in the infrared) via radiative transport, additional gas of any kind can only result in a higher equilibrium temperature.

Given the much more rapid respons time of the stratosphere to radiative forcings, there is (can be) some initial stratospheric cooling (or at least some cooling somewhere in the stratosphere), which consists of a transient component, and a component that remains at full equilibrium.

... interestingly in the grey gas case with no solar heating of the stratosphere, increasing the optical thickness of the atmosphere would result in an initial cooling of and in the vicinity of the skin layer (reduced OLR), and an initial radiative warming of the air just above the surface (increased backradiation)-- of course, the first of those dissappears at full equilibrium.

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.

That forcing is just under 4W / m ^ 2, so put differently, equilibrium climate sensitivity is the equilibrium expected surface warming for a radiative forcing of 1W / m ^ 2, divided by 4.

In full equilibrium, at any given level, there may be some net radiative heating at some frequencies compensated by some net radiative cooling at other frequencies, with convection balancing the full spectrum radiative cooling of the troposphere and heating of the surface.

(57k) When I state that the equilibrium climatic response must balance imposed RF (and feedbacks that occur), I am referring to a global time average RF and global time average response (in terms of radiative and convective fluxes), on a time scale sufficient to characterize the climatic state (including cycles driven by externally - forced cycles (diurnal, annual) and internal variability.

APE produced from kinetic energy may take the form of temperature variations that are farther from radiative equilibrium, and thus may be destroyed by differential radiative heating.

In the pure radiative equilibrium, you can get it into a range where the grey model gives you surface warming and stratospheric cooling (that's in one of the problems), but you have to work at it a bit, and also remember to plot things in pressure coord, not optical depth coordinates.

Radiative equilibrium at small LW optical thickness occurs when the whole atmosphere has a temperature such that the Planck function is about half of that of the surface (a skin temperature), whereas at larger LW optical thicknesses, the equilibrium profile has a signficant drop in the Planck function through the atmosphere, approaching half the OLR value at TOA and approaching the surface value towards the surface — of course, convection near the surface will bring a closer match between surface and surface - air temperatures.

Starting from an old equilbrium, a change in radiative forcing results in a radiative imbalance, which results in energy accumulation or depletion, which causes a temperature response that approahes equilibrium when the remaining imbalance approaches zero — thus the equilibrium climatic response, in the global - time average (for a time period long enough to characterize the climatic state, including externally imposed cycles (day, year) and internal variability), causes an opposite change in radiative fluxes (via Planck function)(plus convective fluxes, etc, where they occur) equal in magnitude to the sum of the (externally) imposed forcing plus any «forcings» caused by non-Planck feedbacks (in particular, climate - dependent changes in optical properties, + etc.).)

The stratosphere will, absent sustained non-radiative perturbations (see 57i), approach radiative equilibrium on a time scale under a year (Holton, «An Introduction to Dynamic Meteorology», 1992, p. 410), so taking stratospheric adjustment to instantaneous stratospheric forcing first and then applying the adjusted tropopause - level forcing to the troposphere + surface and stratospheric feedbacks is similar to the actual order of events in reality.

In this case the CO2 concentration is instantaneously quadrupled and kept constant for 150 years of simulation, and both equilibrium climate sensitivity and RF are diagnosed from a linear fit of perturbations in global mean surface temperature to the instantaneous radiative imbalance at the TOA.

In radiative - convective equilibrium, the convergence of different energy fluxes (solar and LW radiation, summed over all frequencies, and convection / conduction / etc.)

In short, though, I think that the interest in unforced variability and in instabilities both in the field and in the general public masks the well - known fact that the time constant for radiative equilibrium of the atmosphere alone is on the order of weeks.

«According to the radiative - convective equilibrium concept, the equation for determining global average surface temperature of the planet is

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.

Re my 441 — competing bands — To clarify, the absorption of each band adds to a warming effect of the surface + troposphere; given those temperatures, there are different equilibrium profiles of the stratosphere (and different radiative heating and cooling rates in the troposphere, etc.) for different amounts of absorption at different wavelengths; the bands with absorption «pull» on the temperature profile toward their equilibria; disequilibrium at individual bands is balanced over the whole spectrum (with zero net LW cooling, or net LW cooling that balances convective and solar heating).

Actually, we're using the term climate sensitivity in the same sense, the equilibrium response of mean temp to the surface radiative forcing associated with CO2 doubling.

So, if you instantaneously put a lot of GHGs into an atmosphere that starts in equilibrium, radiative outflow < inflow and temperature starts rising.

Traditional radiative - dynamical theories suggest that the position of the tropopause is determined by radiative - convective equilibrium in tropical latitudes.

(Actually, I believe what you are refering to, is as your link pointed out, the IPCC definition of equilibrium climate sensitivity, and not simple solar radiative equilibrium, as we have been discussing in these last few posts.)

It also facilitates the theoretical determination of the planetary radiative equilibrium cloud cover, cloud altitude and Bond albedo.

If CO2 were increased in a pulse of a few parts per million — the atmosphere warms rapidly and there may be a very temporary imbalance in radiative flux at TOA before equilibrium is restored with a warmer atmosphere.

Instead, Miskolczi appears to have become obsessed in trying to explain the greenhouse effect in terms of century - old outdated Schuster - Schwarzschild analytic formulations derived for a spectrally gray, homogenous, radiative equilibrium atmosphere.

The equilibrium climate sensitivity quantifies the response of the climate system to constant radiative forcing on multi-century time scales.

For those who want to check out the physics, read up the statistical thermodynamics which leads to Kirchhoff; s law of radiation and realise that «Prevost exchange energy» is needed to connect the IR density of states in the two objects in radiative equilibrium and maintain absorptivity = emissivity.

The manuscript uses a simple energy budget equation (as employed e.g. by Gregory et al 2004, 2008, Otto et al 2013) to test the consistency between three recent «assessments» of radiative forcing and climate sensitivity (not really equilibrium climate sensitivity in the case of observational studies).

Miskolczi instead claims he has shown that the discontinuity is the result of ignoring the lower boundary condition, and in fact the ground is on average in thermal radiative equilibrium with the air in contact with it.

The high emissivity of CO2 in the IR actually contributes to our radiative equilibrium temperature being another 20K or more lower than that but I'll wait until somebody is interested in implementing the computations in CoSy or puts a table, not a graph, of an actual measured mean spectrum in my lap.

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.

«The equilibrium climate sensitivity quantifies the response of the climate system to constant radiative forcing on multicentury time scales.