Sentences with phrase «on atmospheric radiation»

Papers on atmospheric radiation and atmospheric CO2 appeared in 1949; articles on glacial response to temperature variations, and temperature trends in both England and Canada appeared in the early 50s.

More quantitative details can be found in books on atmospheric radiation, such as Ray Pierrehumbert's book «Principles of Planetary Climate».)

Thus an understanding of the mechanisms distributing water vapor through the atmosphere and of water vapor's effects on atmospheric radiation and circulation is vital to estimating long - term changes in climate.

Since arctic clouds are known to exert a significant influence on atmospheric radiation and may play a role in observed arctic warming, the ARM - ACME V campaign will also address populations of liquid droplets and ice crystals to help characterize the properties of cloud layers.

In 1928, George Simpson published a memoir on atmospheric radiation, which assumed water vapour was the only greenhouse gas, even though, as Richardson pointed out in a comment, there was evidence that even dry air absorbed infrared radiation.

I stumbled across Steve Carson's wonderfully detailed and expository blog on atmospheric radiation and energy transfer effects this morning while googling something about Grant Petty's textbook, A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation, something I've challenged myself to make a serious... Continue reading →

Ming - Dah and I have had many conversations on atmospheric radiation processes.

Not exact matches

At sea level on Earth, sunlight's «radiation pressure» is about 50 million times smaller than atmospheric pressure.

Yet there is no doubt that research into atmospheric aerosols is becoming increasingly important due to the effects that they can have on the global temperature of Earth, given that solar radiation is the main source of energy for Earth - Atmosphere system.

«The amount of visible radiation entering the lower atmosphere was increasing, which implies warming at the surface,» says atmospheric physicist Joanna Haigh of Imperial College London, who led the research, published in Nature on October 7.

It has also been proposed that ultraviolet (UV) radiation, which varies more than other solar irradiance wavelengths, could amplify the solar influence on the global climate through interactions with the stratosphere and atmospheric ozone.

ICARUS is gathering data on surface radiation, heat fluxes, and vertical profiles of the basic atmospheric state (temperature, humidity, and horizontal wind), as well as turbulence, aerosol properties, and cloud properties.

However, only on Earth can they stand without special protection from inhospitable temperatures, atmospheric gases and pressure (or its absence), or Solar and cosmic radiation.

SkinCeuticals defines atmospheric aging as the visible result of a range of environmental aggressors on skin, including UV, infrared radiation (IRA), and pollution.

One is to acknowledge that calculation of radiation transport through a partially opaque atmosphere is one of those problems that seems easy until you try to write down the equations, and then you find it's a monster — the great mathematical physicist S. Chandrasekhar spent years working on it and wrote a book full of equations on stellar atmospheres that I think hardly anyone in atmospheric physics even tries to read.

The whole issue is that any level above what is often called the «effective radiating level» (say, at ~ 255 K on Earth) should start to cool as atmospheric CO2 increases, since the layers above this height are being shielded more strongly from upwelling radiation... except not quite, because convection distributes heating higher than this level, the stratosphere marks the point where convection gives out and there is high static stability.

The work is an estimate of the global average based on a single - column, time - average model of the atmosphere and surface (with some approximations — e.g. the surface is not truly a perfect blackbody in the LW (long - wave) portion of the spectrum (the wavelengths dominated by terrestrial / atmospheric emission, as opposed to SW radiation, dominated by solar radiation), but it can give you a pretty good idea of things (fig 1 shows a spectrum of radiation to space); there is also some comparison to actual measurements.

Such proximity introduces hazards that are of negligible importance for life on Earth: increased exposure to (time - varying) short wavelength radiation, stronger magnetic fields, tidal effects, and atmospheric removal by the stellar wind.

The ones that are most relevant today though are those that affect atmospheric absorption and reflection of radiation, and surface impacts on either radiative or hydrologic fluxes.

This is not the case with surface - to - air heat exchange (which involves evapo - transpiration, sensible heat flows, and radiation) or even within the troposphere where impacts of latent heating on atmospheric circulations are realized on scales ranging from hundreds of meters to thousands of kilometers.

Contrary to your impression, incoming radiation contributes significantly to atmospheric heating, but less on a proportional basis than outgoing radiation.

You don't even need a surface to have an atmospheric greenhouse effect (on a planet like Jupiter for example, any point along a T (p) curve within a convecting layer will be higher than it would be if its atmosphere were totally transparent to thermal radiation).

incoming radiation contributes significantly to atmospheric heating, but less on a proportional basis than outgoing radiation

In particular, the authors find fault with IPCC's conclusions relating to human activities being the primary cause of recent global warming, claiming, contrary to significant evidence that they tend to ignore, that the comparatively small influences of natural changes in solar radiation are dominating the influences of the much larger effects of changes in the atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations on the global energy balance.

Glacial periods give way to interglacials on some occasions when the Northern Hemisphere's summer solar insolation (the amount of solar radiation received by Earth's surface) increases alongside corresponding decreases in ice volume and increases in temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2).

So if there were, say, a decadal - scale 1 % -2 % reduction in cloud cover that allowed more SW radiation to penetrate into the ocean (as has been observed since the 1980s), do you think this would have an impact of greater magnitude on the heat in the oceans than a change of, say, +10 ppm (0.00001) in the atmospheric CO2 concentration?

Most people don't understand the details of atmospheric physics or principal components analysis, and so take many statements about «back - radiation» and «hockeysticks» on trust.

Looking in a textbook about atmospheric physics, meteorology or climate physics it is getting quite clear that atmospheres are more complex then just reducing their thermal structure on the effects of solar radiation and greenhouse gases alone.

The principles of absorption and emission of radiation by various atmospheric trace gases like water vapor and CO2 rely on the theory of quantum mechanics.

A particular worry of mine is that some developing nations, faced with a climate crisis, may use the notion of the past uncompensated atmospheric imperialism by rich nations as a moral justification for launching a unilateral assault on the climate, by means of solar radiation management.

Each higher and cooler layer in turn emits thermal radiation corresponding to its temperature; and much of that also escapes directly to space around the absorption bands of the higher atmosphere layers; and so on; so that the total LWIR emission from the earth should then be a composite of roughly BB spectra but with source temepratures ranging ove the entire surface Temeprature range, as well as the range of atmospheric emitting Temperatures.

The sun may influence climate — not on an incident radiation basis — but on indirect effects through stratospheric / atmospheric pathways.

Given the model generated clouds, we can calculate their radiative effects on atmospheric fluxes accurately for both solar and thermal radiation.

This measure is available for the US from the BEST data set... The reconfirmation now of a strong sun - temperature relation based specifically upon the daytime temperature maxima adds strong and independent scientific weight to the reality of the sun - temperature connection... This suggests strongly that changes in solar radiation drive temperature variations on at least a hemispheric scale... Close correlations like these simply do not exist for temperature and changing atmospheric CO2 concentration.»

The Americans — who published their findings on Sunday in Nature Climate Change — ran two different climate models, CAM3.5 and HadCM3L — the one devised by the US National Center for Atmospheric Research and the other by the UK Met Office's Hadley Centre and simulated a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations, temperature - compensating stratospheric solar radiation management (SRM) geoengineering — and compared precipitation changes.

The only researched and quantified contribution of atmosphere on global temperature has been that of applying the Ideal Gas Laws and insolation [familiar to those educated before the popularity of «back radiation»]- Nikolov and Zeller being one example using empirically derived data from other atmospheric bodies within the Solar System.

It is true that the greenhouse effect theory is based on experimental observations, e.g., a) the different infra - red properties of the atmospheric gases; b) the infra - red nature of the Earth's outgoing radiation and c) the observation that fossil fuel usage is increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Yet on these sites (and in the media, and even by a few semi related scientists who kinda keep an eye on the issue or are semi involved) treat it as if it is some sort of both immediate, and linear, contemporaneous correlation between increased lower level atmospheric re radiation, and increased (or changed) global ambient air temperatures, which is absurd, and belies any real deep understanding of the actual issue.

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.

While actual scientists are trying to piece together every little part of an otherwise almost un-piecable long term chaotic and variable system in response now to a massive increase in net lower atmospheric energy absorption and re radiation, Curry is busy — much like most of the comments on this site most of the time — trying to come up with or re-post every possible argument under the sun to all but argue against the basic concept that radically altering the atmosphere on a multi million year basis is going to affect the net energy balance of earth, which over time is going to translate into a very different climate (and ocean level) than the one we've comfortably come to rely on.

«This H2O negative - feedback effect on CO2 is ignored in models that assume that warm moist air does not rise and form sunlight - reflecting clouds, but remains as humid air near sea level, absorbing infrared radiation from the sun, and approximately doubling the temperature rises predicted from atmospheric CO2 increases.

... where the effects of atmospheric gases is shown on both incomeing and outgoing radiation.

Thus the spectral composition of solar radiation is crucial in determining atmospheric structure, as well as surface temperature, and it follows that the response of the atmosphere to variations in solar irradiance depends on the spectrum2.

The physics that must be included to investigate the moist greenhouse is principally: (i) accurate radiation incorporating the spectral variation of gaseous absorption in both the solar radiation and thermal emission spectral regions, (ii) atmospheric dynamics and convection with no specifications favouring artificial atmospheric boundaries, such as between a troposphere and stratosphere, (iii) realistic water vapour physics, including its effect on atmospheric mass and surface pressure, and (iv) cloud properties that respond realistically to climate change.

CO; 2 Observations of the Infrared Radiative Properties of the Ocean «[I] t is necessary to understand the physical variables contributing to sea surface emitted and reflected radiation to space.The emissivity of the ocean surface varies with view angle and sea state, the reflection of sky radiation also depends on view angle and sea state, and the absorption of atmospheric constituents such as water vapor, aerosols, and subdivisible clouds affect transmittance.»

IPCC «science» is based on the concept of «Forcing», the net energy transfer to Earth's surface by solar SW and atmospheric LW radiation.

Speaking of caveats I owe Phil an explanation on atmospheric nitrogen thermal radiation.

This effective radiating level depends on atmospheric composition and, in particular, on those constituents that absorb terrestrial radiation.

Since 1978 microwave sounding units (MSUs) on National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration polar orbiting satellites have measured the intensity of upwelling microwave radiation from atmospheric oxygen, which is related to the temperature of broad vertical layers of the atmosphere.

Sensors on board would have contributed to the study of clouds, solar radiation, and (most significantly) atmospheric aerosols.