Sentences with phrase «on radiative»

This may suggest that for a given optical thickness, the influence of particle shape on the radiative forcing caused by a cloud composed of small ice crystals can be negligible.

Interestingly, most public discourse of this subject concentrates on radiative transfer: heat and light.

Recall that Teh Modulz are not only tuned to GMST, but to things like cloud, snow and ice coverage as well as ocean heat content — all of which have an impact on radiative balance and hence energy budget of the system, not to mention energy redistribution internally.

I have also studied, for example, the effects of snow grain shape on the reflection of solar radiation by snow, and the effects of subgrid - scale cloud features (clouds too small to be resolved by a climate model) on radiative transfer.

The atmoshpere does have a certain heat retaining «capacity» which is entirely dependent on radiative loss to outer space.

you wrote: «But the research on radiative transfer carried out in connection with heat sensor / seeking systems for military purposes would seem to make it unlikely that any such major error has gone unnoticed.»

Jeff, the 1C value for a forcing of 3.7 W / m ^ 2 (the canonical value for doubled CO2 based on radiative transfer equations and spectroscopic data) is derived by differentiating the Stefan - Boltzmann equation that equates flux (F) to a constant (sigma) x the fourth power of temperature.

Assuming 1 % hydrate by pore water volume were released on average from the slide volume, you get a methane release of about 0.8 Gton of C. Even if all of the hydrate made it to the atmosphere, it would have had a smaller climate impact than a volcanic eruption (I calculated the methane impact on the radiative budget here).

Bauer, S.E., M.I. Mishchenko, A.A. Lacis, S. Zhang, J.P. Perlwitz, and S.M. Metzger, 2007: Do sulfate and nitrate coatings on mineral dust have important effects on radiative properties and climate modeling?

The whole algorithm applied in my calculations is in Modest's book on radiative heat transfer.

To address these issues, the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) asked the National Academies to undertake a study to evaluate the current state of knowledge on radiative forcings and to identify relevant

I am particularly grateful to Professors David Douglass and Robert Knox for having patiently answered many questions over several weeks, and for having allowed me to present a seminar on some of these ideas to a challenging audience in the Physics Faculty at Rochester University, New York; to Dr. David Evans for his assistance with temperature feedbacks; to Professor Felix Fitzroy of the University of St. Andrews for some vigorous discussions; to Professor Larry Gould and Dr. Walter Harrison for having given me the opportunity to present some of the data and conclusions on radiative transfer and climate sensitivity at a kindly - received public lecture at Hartford University, Connecticut; to Dr. Joanna Haigh of Imperial College, London, for having supplied a crucial piece of the argument; to Professor Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for his lecture - notes and advice on the implications of the absence of the tropical mid-troposphere «hot - spot» for climate sensitivity; to Dr. Willie Soon of the Harvard Center for Astrophysics for having given much useful advice and for having traced several papers that were not easily obtained; and to Dr. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama at Huntsville for having answered several questions in connection with satellite data.

Clouds have a huge impact on the radiative (and convective) heat transfers in the atmosphere.

A lot of confusion seems to lie in not realizing that all the energy entering and leaving at the TOA is radiative, and as a result of this the effect of the non radiative fluxes from the surface (from latent heat of water and thermals) on the radiative budget has to be zero, because COE dictates that the atmosphere can not create any energy of its own.

Why should I accept your fantasies about the CO2, if scientists specialized on radiative heat transfer say the same thing that I'm saying?

All the authors on radiative heat transfer states that the carbon dioxide emissivity at 1000 °C is not more than 0.157; so where is the physical property of the carbon dioxide that enables it to have an emissivity ten times higher than that of a blackbody?

In response, the Committee on Radiative Forcing Effects on Climate was formed.

By 1994, with work on SAR progressing, the Special Report on Radiative Forcing (IPCC, 1995) reported significant breakthroughs in a set of chapters limited to assessment of the carbon cycle, atmospheric chemistry, aerosols and RF.

Here, we present an explanation for time - invariant land — sea warming ratio that applies if three conditions on radiative forcing are met: first, spatial variations in the climate forcing must be sufficiently small that the lower free troposphere warms evenly over land and ocean; second, the temperature response must not be large enough to change the global circulation to zeroth order; third, the temperature response must not be large enough to modify the boundary layer amplification mechanisms that contribute to making φ exceed unity.

2) The effects of clouds and aerosols on radiative heat transfer, which are many and varied and still being studied with many questions open.

Roy eventually withdrew, but to summarise, he admitted that what he collectively called convection was indeed important, but that everyone is too busy working on the radiative stuff.

They settled on the radiative physics to the exclusion of everything else.

Adding N2 will not increase temperature since it will have no impact on the radiative emission to space.

The fact remains that this all has no bearing whatsoever on the radiative forcing of CO2.

ICROA is committed to reaching a consensus on Radiative Forcing Index (RFI), a consensus that accurately reflects scientific opinion on this contentious issue.

Since all models significantly expand their Hadley cells in climate warming simulations, this cloud - circulation interaction leaves a significant imprint on the radiative impact of the clouds.

Of course all the prior stuff on radiative physics also fits in.

But based on the radiative properties, there is broad agreement that, all things being equal, a doubling of CO2 will yield a temperature increase of a bit more than 1 C if feedbacks are ignored.

Incorporating new findings on the radiative forcing of black carbon (BC) aerosols, the magnitude of the climate sensitivity, and the strength of the climate / carbon cycle feedbacks into a simple upwelling diffusion / energy balance model similar to the one that was used in the TAR, we find that the range of projected warming for the 1990 - 2100 period is reduced to 1.1 - 2.8 °C.

These two studies are important contributions to the debate on radiative forcing, but the approach is subject to most of the limitations associated with the traditional radiative forcing calculation.

«This blind spot seems to be widespread in climate science: Ray Pierrehumbert in the previous post, the recent paper by Lacis and Schmidt, Judith Curry's blog, the Scienceofdoom blog, all concentrate to excess on radiative heat transport.»

These findings are not sensitive to a wide range of assumptions, including the time series used to measure temperature, the omission of black carbon and stratospheric water vapor, and uncertainty about anthropogenic sulfur emissions and its effect on radiative forcing (SI Appendix: Sections 2.4 — 7).

The 1998 - 2008 hiatus is not the first period in the instrumental temperature record when the effects of anthropogenic changes in greenhouse gases and sulfur emissions on radiative forcing largely cancel.

Dr. Glickstein, the above is for a paper on radiative heat transfer by infrared in the atmosphere.

A way to think about the logarithmic effect on radiative transmission is to imagine you have a very sunny window.

There is just the effect of CO2 on radiative absorption, the effect of land use changes on albedo, and perhaps waste heat itself if you value completeness.

see fred «'' Jeff, the 1C value for a forcing of 3.7 W / m ^ 2 (the canonical value for doubled CO2 based on radiative transfer equations and spectroscopic data) is derived by differentiating the Stefan - Boltzmann equation that equates flux (F) to a constant (sigma) x the fourth power of temperature.

The Greenland ice sheet plays a crucial role in the Arctic and global climate systems through its impact and feedbacks on radiative budget, ocean, atmosphere and ecosystems.

As to No. 1 (~ 1C from CO2 doubly with no feedbacks), I think it is ok as far as it goes based on radiative physics.

All you folks arguing that the model is valid are doing so by performing accounting on the radiative balance (235 out = 470 out — 235 in, etc.).

He thought that this connection might occur via the effect of cosmic ray induced ionization on aerosol and cloud condensation nuclei and thus on the radiative properties of clouds.

This empirically - based approach is the one Hansen and Sato pursue in this paper, while noting of course that their approach can not be wholly independent of climate modeling, for example relying on radiative forcing computations from climate models, which is the most accurate way to estimate the magnitude of various forcings.

(This is also the reason, why the warming of real greenhouses is based essentially on stopping convection rather than on the radiative greenhouse effect, which is in them too weak to observe.)

If all farm animals disappeared, tomorrow, we could not measure the impact on the radiative balance of the atmosphere.

You can see this — photographs and commentary on radiative heat loss of humans (the subject of the IR photographs) on Wikipedia pages — it is just plain kiddy science.

Experimental Investigations on Radiative Properties of Two Kinds of Open - cell Porous Ceramic Materials

The influence on radiative energy transfer is, however, quite significant.

In short, the focus on radiative physics is misguided.»

This reversed in 1976/77 — and the renewed warming sparked renewed interest in the work on radiative properties of gases and the measurements of Charles Keeling.

But including aerosol indirect effects on radiative forcing has made it easier to generate a greater variety of 20th century simulations without affecting other aspects of the climate simulation as strongly.