Sentences with phrase «on radiative equilibrium»

Not exact matches

The differential heating imposed on the troposphere + surface layer is sufficient that LW emissions from within the layer are not able to establish pure radiative equilibrium without having the temperature profile become unstable to convection.

(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.

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 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.

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).

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

Fred, I'm must looking at Held's blog on radiative convective equilibrium and it looks like to me that they «discovered» that convection is inormously conplex with bifurcation points and possibly nonuniquess:

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.

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-...] ``

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

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.

And the gut feeling by IPCC is everything from a walk in the park to catastrophe: «The equilibrium climate sensitivity quantifies the response of the climate system to constant radiative forcing on multi - century time scales.

But that level very likely will be less than that based on the extremely over-simplified, zeroth - order radiative - equilibrium so - called model.

The troposphere is in radiative - convective equilibrium (check out Isaac Held's work on this).

During this two - week transition period, any water vapor excess (or deficit) relative to the equilibrium distribution did of course produce a radiative greenhouse heating (or cooling) effect, but this «virtual forcing» was very transient in nature, without any lasting impact on the global temperature.

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).

The TOA is the radiating «surface» on a planet with an atmosphere, which is in radiative equilibrium with the Sun at 255K.

If one inserts a thin and stationary horizontal adiabatic wall (well... ok, «insulated wall») at any height L within a gas column at equilibrium (no net diffusive, radiative or convective heat flows within this column) then the pressure on both sides of the wall integrated over its surface match the weight of the column above.

I was responding to someone who was using an equation that represents a temp differential from one equilibrium state to the next, based on additional radiative forcing.

Radiative Transfer Physics does not depend entirely on the simple absorbtivity of CO2, which by the way is effectively permanent in air when added by burning fossil fuels, compared to water which saturates and precipitates out depending on climate conditions, such as warming due the GHE, as a marginal shift in the dynamic equilibrium through feedbacks.

Similarly, the climate scenarios were based on 2xCO2 equilibrium GCM projections from three models, where the radiative forcing of climate was interpreted as the combined concentrations of CO2 (555 ppm) and other greenhouse gases (contributing about 15 % of the change in forcing) equivalent to a doubling of CO2, assumed to occur in about 2060.

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.

ECS is the increase in the global annual mean surface temperature caused by an instantaneous doubling of the atmospheric concentration of CO2 relative to the pre-industrial level after the model relaxes to radiative equilibrium, while the TCR is the temperature increase averaged over 20 years centered on the time of doubling at a 1 % per year compounded increase.

The amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere combined with other factors determine the radiative balance, and / or temperature at which relative thermal equilibrium for a planet occurs based on these factors.

Re 416 Bernd Herd — in climate science, for global climate change, specifically a global (average surface) temperature change in response to a global (typically average net tropopause - level after stratospheric adjustment) radiative forcing (or other heat source — although on Earth those tend not to be so big), where the radiative forcing may be in units of W / m ^ 2, so that equilibrium climate sensitivity is in K * m ^ 2 / W (it is often expressed as K / doubling CO2 as doubling CO2 has a certain amount of radiative forcing for given conditions).

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).

Radiative equilibrium takes place on very fast (microsecond or less) timescales, so what on earth are you talking about?

The central conclusion of this study is that to disregard the low values of effective climate sensitivity (≈ 1 °C) given by observations on the grounds that they do not agree with the larger values of equilibrium, or effective, climate sensitivity given by GCMs, while the GCMs themselves do not properly represent the observed value of the tropical radiative response coefficient, is a standpoint that needs to be reconsidered.

An atmosphere can be in stable radiative equilibrium for any LW optical depth, but the equilibrium surface temperature will monotonically depend on the value of the optical depth....»

You then say «It is based on the fallacy that if the escape of heating is blocked, then the temperature will continue to rise until a «radiative equilibrium» is reached..»

It is based on the fallacy that if the escape of heating is blocked, then the temperature will continue to rise until a «radiative equilibrium» is reached and the heat bursts through the barrier.