Sentences with phrase «on radiative energy»

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

What ARM meant: To unravel the uncertainties in cloud feedbacks it was necessary to obtain simultaneous measurements of a broad range of parameters relative to clouds and their impact on the radiative energy balance.

Not exact matches

Changes in TSI can be converted into a radiative forcing, which tells us the energy imbalance it causes on Earth.

James A. Edmonds • Member, IPCC Steering Committee on «New Integrated Scenarios» (2006 - present) • Lead Author, Working Group III, «Framing Issues,» IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (2007) • Lead Author, Working Group III, «Global, Regional, and National Costs and Ancillary Benefits of Mitigation,» IPCC Third Assessment Report (2001) • Lead Author, Working Group III, «Decision - Making Frameworks,» IPCC Third Assessment Report (2001) • Lead Author, Working Group III, Summary for Policy Makers, IPCC Third Assessment Report (2001) • Lead Author, Working Group II, «Energy Supply Mitigation Options,» IPCC Second Assessment Report (1996) • Lead Author, Working Group II, «Mitigation: Cross-Sectoral and Other Issues,» IPCC Second Assessment Report (1996) • Lead Author, Working Group III, «Estimating the Costs of Mitigating Greenhouse Gases,» IPCC Second Assessment Report (1996) • Lead Author, Working Group III, «A Review of Mitigation Cost Studies,» IPCC Second Assessment Report (1996) • Lead Author, Working Group III, «Integrated Assessment of Climate Change: An Overview and Comparison of Approaches and Results,» IPCC Second Assessment Report (1996) • Lead Author, IPCC Special Report, Climate Change 1994: Radiative Forcing of Climate Change and An Evaluation of the IPCC IS92 Emission Scenarios (1994) • Lead Author, IPCC Special Report, Climate Change 1992: The Supplementary Report to the IPCC Scientific Assessment (1992) • Major contributor, IPCC First Assessment Report, Working Group III, Response Strategies Working Group (1991).

Surface radiative energy budget plays an important role in the Arctic, which is covered by snow and ice: when the balance is positive, more solar radiation from the Sun and the Earth's atmosphere arrives on the Earth's surface than is emitted from it.

Despite the difficulties of calibration that makes an absolute radiative imbalance measurement impossible — the anomalies data contains essential information on climate variability that can be used to understand and close out the global energy budget — changes in which are largely OHC.

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.

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

However, the sun provides an abundant source of energy and by changing the earth's radiative balance so that we absorb a little more of that energy, we are having an important effect on the earth's climate.

A vast array of thought has been brought to bear on this problem, beginning with Arrhenius» simple energy balance calculation, continuing through Manabe's one - dimensional radiative - convective models in the 1960's, and culminating in today's comprehensive atmosphere - ocean general circulation models.

The point isn't a «perpetual increase in atmospheric pressure» — that's a misnomer — if you consider the MASS of the atmosphere that is continuously «pumped» from cold air to hot air to cold air again, high up in the atmosphere — that creates «potential energy» from the kinetic energy of the convection — adiabatic expansion of the atmosphere is the result — the adiabatic compression occurs on the return trip of the previously warmed (from radiative energy) air as it completes the «cycle» as it comes back down!

All what I list in the above is empirical evidence on the models of radiative energy transfer.

Because short - term projections depend on unforeseeable factors like volcanoes, solar intensity changes, ENSOs etc., and long - term projections depend on radiative balance and conservation of energy.

It couldn't be quite as fast as on a planet with no atmosphere because there would also be non radiative energy exchanges between the GHGs and the ground via conduction and convection.

The uncertainty is largest on the regional scale because the horizontal transports of energy (latent heat, sensible heat, geopotential energy) dominate over the radiative transfer of energy.

That uplift causes all the additional radiative energy to be converted from kinetic energy (which registers on sensors as heat) to potential energy (which does not register on sensors as heat).

But on larger scales (both in space and time) the earth is a planet of our local star; the sun is our only source of (purely radiative) energy; we have an atmosphere which clearly operates to reduce diurnal variations in temperature (which on black body basis would otherwise be huge, on human scale) and the radiative budget must always be exactly in balance.

Patrick Brown and Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution for Science say incorporating observational data of «Earth's top - of - atmosphere energy budget» shows the «warming projection for the end of the twenty - first century for the steepest radiative forcing scenario is about 15 per cent warmer (+0.5 degrees Celsius)... relative to the raw model projections reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.»

I took this from wiki: he total solar irradiance (TSI) is the amount of solar radiative energy incident on the Earth's upper atmosphere.

For instance — changes in upwelling of frigid sub-surface water having an effect on clouds and that influencing global energy dynamics — as shown in satellite radiative flux data.

So it seems to me that the simple way of communicating a complex problem has led to several fallacies becoming fixed in the discussions of the real problem; (1) the Earth is a black body, (2) with no materials either surrounding the systems or in the systems, (3) in radiative energy transport equilibrium, (4) response is chaotic solely based on extremely rough appeal to temporal - based chaotic response, (5) but at the same time exhibits trends, (6) but at the same time averages of chaotic response are not chaotic, (7) the mathematical model is a boundary value problem yet it is solved in the time domain, (8) absolutely all that matters is the incoming radiative energy at the TOA and the outgoing radiative energy at the Earth's surface, (9) all the physical phenomena and processes that are occurring between the TOA and the surface along with all the materials within the subsystems can be ignored, (10) including all other activities of human kind save for our contributions of CO2 to the atmosphere, (11) neglecting to mention that if these were true there would be no problem yet we continue to expend time and money working on the problem.

The «steel greenhouse» concept for demonstrating the radiative greenhouse effect has been debunked many times on this blog (the least reason of which its advocates attempt to conserve temperature instead of energy!)

While I may disagree with you on some of the details of radiative energy transport in the atmosphere and the applicability of simple models, I am in general agreement with your views in this post.

Therefore, any absorption band within spitting distance of 57 microns should be taken into account with respect to radiative - transfer effects on the energy - transport question; anything very far away need not be.

Heat from the Sun is its thermal energy on the move by radiative transfer.

It hinges on the proposition that «Nature will redistribute the contained atmospheric energy (using both convective and radiative processes) until each molecule, in an average sense, will have the same total energy.»

Detection / attribution assessments, using General Circulation Models (GCMs) or Energy Balance Models (EBMs) with geographical distributions of surface temperature trends, suggest that the solar influence on climate is greater than would be anticipated from radiative forcing estimates.

The radiative energy inciding on our skin is absorbed by the molecules of water in our bodies by Resonance Absorption.

To a first approximation, the energy that we radiate back into space is therefore emitted from this radiative surface (which is in the atmosphere and not on the surface).

But they don't actually specify whether it is a radiative energy transfer mechanism or a sensible heat transfer mechanism so how can I be clear what they «expect» exactly if they insist on being vague?

New information on the accuracy of satellite data measuring the Arctic surface radiative energy budget

The biggest error of all the errors in the physics of the radiative greenhouse conjecture is that they «explain» the surface temperature of 288K using Stefan - Boltzmann calculations based on the direct solar radiation PLUS about TWICE as much supposed thermal energy input from the colder atmosphere.

The direct radiative forcing calculation is based on an empiric al equation derived from well - established atmospheric radiative energy transfer models and serves as a first - order proxy for global warming impact.»

Similar critique applies also to other papers that has been discussed on these page and that claim to refute the main stream understanding of the radiative energy transfer.

«Radiative energy transport, on the other hand, depends only on the difference of the local matter and radiation temperatures at a single point in space.

SRM techniques are all fundamentally focused on altering the Earth's energy budget, assessed in terms of radiative forcing measured in watts per square meter.

The fundamental hypothesis is that at some time in the past and over some unspecified time - averaging period that on a whole - planet basis radiative energy transport attained a state of equilibrium; out - going energy = in - coming energy.

We focus on satellite - and radar - based estimation of various quantities describing the Earth's surface and weather, such as surface albedo, the radiative energy budget, falling and accumulated snow, and cloudiness parameters.

The non-radiative effects (convection) and phase changes carry more heat into the upper atmosphere where there is a greater chance for energy to be radiated directly to space, less chance of radiative interaction with molecules on the way out.

The answer to that question is that it depends on how many Watts of power it takes to provide enough energy to raise temperatures back up to the point where radiative balance is restored.

Although we focus on a hypothesized CR - cloud connection, we note that it is difficult to separate changes in the CR flux from accompanying variations in solar irradiance and the solar wind, for which numerous causal links to climate have also been proposed, including: the influence of UV spectral irradiance on stratospheric heating and dynamic stratosphere - troposphere links (Haigh 1996); UV irradiance and radiative damage to phytoplankton influencing the release of volatile precursor compounds which form sulphate aerosols over ocean environments (Kniveton et al. 2003); an amplification of total solar irradiance (TSI) variations by the addition of energy in cloud - free regions enhancing tropospheric circulation features (Meehl et al. 2008; Roy & Haigh 2010); numerous solar - related influences (including solar wind inputs) to the properties of the global electric circuit (GEC) and associated microphysical cloud changes (Tinsley 2008).

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.

What is demonstrated here (and by the deep discussions) is the over concentration on simplistic radiative energy transfer.

The Sun's radiation transports, or emits, short - wave electro - magnetic radiation away and thus avoids «a big bang» --(There may also be back radiation from planets etc. provided the radiative forces are strong enough to reach the Sun) On a smaller scale the same «Energy Transport System» or radiative principles work here on Earth toOn a smaller scale the same «Energy Transport System» or radiative principles work here on Earth toon Earth too.

Additional variables also being measured by Aqua include radiative energy fluxes, aerosols, vegetation cover on the land, phytoplankton and dissolved organic matter in the oceans, and air, land, and water temperatures.

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)

Radiative energy is emitted by the sun and absorbed by that point on the surface of the earth for approximately half of the day.

On the other hand, there are only two exits from the Atmosphere for radiative energy, 1) out the Top of the Atmosphere (TOA) to Space and 2) out the Bottom of the Atmosphere (BOA) to the Surface.

For that point on the surface of the earth to stop heating up (equilibrium) the radiative energy emitted by that point in a 24 hour period must therefore exceed the radiative energy it absorbed from the sun in that 24 hour period.

showing how EM radiation, heat and air / water kinetic energy (in cells, circulations, currents, weather systems and convection columns and so on) move and how long they have to move before they reach some kind of equilibrium would go some way to visualising why it takes time for the earth system to respond to radiative forcing (commitment time lag).