Sentences with phrase «radiation fluxes in»

'' An extensive calculation of the radiation flux in the region of the 15 micron CO2 band has recently been made by PLASS (1956b).

Recent accurate laboratory measurements of the absorption in the CO2 band by CLOUD (1952) were used to calculate the radiation flux in the atmosphere with the aid of the MIDAC high speed digital computor.»

Whenever one has to calculate a radiation flux in a specific geometry one has to keep in mind that SB is only valid for half spheres.

The is a paper by some Swiss scientists on the current radiation flux in the Alps that gives a great multi-altitude spectrum of the upwelling LW radiation.

Not exact matches

In a very massive star, photon radiation — the outward flux of photons that is generated due to the star's very high interior temperatures — pushes gas from the star outward in opposition to the gravitational force that pulls the gas back iIn a very massive star, photon radiation — the outward flux of photons that is generated due to the star's very high interior temperatures — pushes gas from the star outward in opposition to the gravitational force that pulls the gas back iin opposition to the gravitational force that pulls the gas back inin.

Another major space weather event resulted in an increase in background radiation that made it difficult for the Analyser of Space Plasmas and Energetic Atoms 3 (ASPERA - 3) instrument on - board Mars Express (MEX) to evaluate ion escape fluxes at Mars (Futaana et al. 2008).

ocean system is associated with an amplified increase in arctic surface air temperature, downward longwave radiation, and net heat flux.

-- The aforementioned empirical determinations of climate sensitivity are much more consistent with each other if the contribution of the cosmic ray flux / cloud cover effect is included in the radiation budget.

The regional climate feedbacks formulation reveals fundamental biases in a widely - used method for diagnosing climate sensitivity, feedbacks and radiative forcing — the regression of the global top - of - atmosphere radiation flux on global surface temperature.

More importantly, this system has the very nice property that the global mean of instantaneous forcing calculations (the difference in the radiation fluxes at the tropopause when you change greenhouse gases or aerosols or whatever) are a very good predictor for the eventual global mean response.

This means that there is an upward surface flux of LW around (~ 390 W / m2), while the outward flux at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) is roughly equivalent to the net solar radiation coming in (1 - a) S / 4 (~ 240 W / m2).

According to http://folk.uio.no/jegill/papers/2002GL015646.pdf «A physical mechanism connecting solar irradiance and low clouds might contain the following components: (1) Over the solar cycle the flux of ultraviolet (UV) radiation varies by several %, and even more so in the short wavelength component of the UV.

In that survey, it was almost universal that groups tuned for radiation balance at the top of the atmosphere (usually by adjusting uncertain cloud parameters), but there is a split on pratices like using flux corrections (2 / 3rds of groups disagreed with that).

(& we have assumed that the energy - in flux is constant) If the new GHG temperature is the same or higher than the air temp, then there will be NO energy absorption by radiation by the new GHGs or any other air or GHG molecules.

Physically, the extra GHG is causing a reduction in the total outgoing radiation at a certain T, and so the planet must warm to re-satisfy radiative equilibrium with the absorbed incoming stellar flux.

The warming of the world ocean is associated with an increase in global surface air temperature, downward longwave radiation, and therefore net heat flux.

Refraction, specifically the real component of refraction n (describes bending of rays, wavelength changes relative to a vacuum, affects blackbody fluxes and intensities — as opposed to the imaginary component, which is related to absorption and emission) is relatively unimportant to shaping radiant fluxes through the atmosphere on Earth (except on the small scale processes where it (along with difraction, reflection) gives rise to scattering, particularly of solar radiation — in that case, the effect on the larger scale can be described by scattering properties, the emergent behavior).

The general argument however is being discussed by rasmus in the context of planetary energy balance: the impact of additional CO2 is to reduce the outgoing longwave radiation term and force the system to accumulate excess energy; the imbalance is currently on the order of 1.45 * (10 ^ 22) Joules / year over the globe, and the temperature must rise allowing the outgoing radiation term to increase until it once again matches the absorbed incoming stellar flux.

ocean system is associated with an amplified increase in arctic surface air temperature, downward longwave radiation, and net heat flux.

Actually there can be convection from the surface that is balanced by some of the radiation from within the troposphere, but in the approximation of zero non-radiative transfer above the tropopause, all the flux into the stratosphere must be from below (absent solar heating).

The downward radiation at the surface would be σ * (Tsa ^ 4 — 2/3 * T4grad) The upward radiation would have to be σ * (Tsa ^ 4 + 2/3 * T4grad) in order for the net upward flux to be constant through the air, which requires Ts ^ 4 = Tsa ^ 4 + 2/3 * T4grad.

It is true that this lost solar heating now adds to the LW flux coming from below, but the skin layer only absorbs a tiny fraction of that, so the increase in absorped LW flux from below is less than the decrease in the absorbed SW radiation.

The increase / decrease of net upward LW flux going from one level to a higher level equals the net cooling / heating of that layer by LW radiation — in equilibrium this must be balanaced by solar heating / cooling + convective / conductive heating / cooling, and those are related to flux variation in height in the same way.

So actually the local radiation field is much simpler that what you're trying to describe: in the transparent windows, it's just the emitted intensity from the source (sun + ground), and in the opaque lines, it is nearly isotropic with the excitation temperature of the molecules close to the local kinetic temperature if collisions are numerous enough, with a small anisotropy linked to the net radiation flux.

Planck radiation is a direct function of the «real» temperature, the radiation intensity or flux being in direct proportion to T ^ 4 (or T ^ 5 depending how you slice it).

The equilibrium response to an addition of RF at a level is an increase in net upward flux consisting of LW radiation (the Planck response, PR) plus a convective flux response CR; CR is approximately zero at and above the tropopause in the global time average.

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

Once the heated layer becomes more than a few centimeters thick, the heat loss of the skin layer due to downward conduction of heat by diffusion stops having any significant effect on the surface temperature, since rock is such a good insulator that the heat flux by conduction in rock is tiny compared to the heat loss by infrared radiation out the top.

If it is in an isothermal layer, it will radiate upward as much as downward; it will decrease the baseline TRPP net flux and increase the baseline TOA flux by the same amount, but it will decrease the baseline TOA flux by a greater amount if it is absorbing radiation with a higher brightness temperature from below (the baseline upward flux at TRPP), so it will increase the amount by which the baseline net flux at TRPP is greater than that at TOA.

The calculations estimate the reduction in the energy flux density with distance away from the sun (Gauss» theorem) and the black body radiation describing the rate of planetary heat loss.

See Fig 1 which shows the spectrum of OLR (outgoing LW radiation)-- the smooth curve is the Planck function for 288 K, approximate surface temperature, scaled (by a factor of pi steradians) to be in terms of flux per unit area per unit of the spectrum.

There is non-radiative heat flux in the atmosphere though and energy can be transported above the level where the greenhouse effect is dominant but eventually must be lost by thermal radiation.

In equilibrium these would be balanced by upward transfer of infrared radiation emitted by the surface, by sensible heat flux (warm air carried upward) and by latent heat flux (i.e. evaporation — moisture carried upward).

Of course, there are plenty of negative feedbacks as well (the increase in long wave radiation as temperatures rise or the reduction in atmospheric poleward heat flux as the equator - to - pole gradient decreases) and these (in the end) are dominant (having kept Earth's climate somewhere between boiling and freezing for about 4.5 billion years and counting).

The Stephens et al paper is a very incremental change from previous estimates of the global energy balances — chiefly an improvement in latent heat fluxes because of undercounts in the satellite precipitation products and an increase in downward longwave radiation.

«But no radiative data is used» It must be incorporated in his model, he states «The all - sky climatological greenhouse effect (the difference of the all - sky surface upward flux and absorbed solar flux) at this surface is equal to the reflected solar radiation.»

where is the vertically integrated energy flux in the atmosphere, is the net radiative energy input to an atmospheric column (the difference between absorbed shortwave radiation and emitted longwave radiation), and is the oceanic energy uptake at the surface.

So I was wondering over which period the radiation fluxes and cloud variables are calculated (e.g., the first 12 hours of each forecast) in each reanalysis.

where SW denotes net downward shortwave radiation, LW net upward longwave radiation, LH latent heat flux, and SH sensible heat flux I can find these products at http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/gridded/data.ncep.reanalysis.surfaceflux.html Regarding the latent and sensible fluxes I don't have a problem (since there are only two in the NCEP list), but regarding the others I have several.

There is no way that some calculation involving the radiation fluxes among Sun, Earth, and GHGs can explain Trenberth's «missing heat» in the deep oceans.

Here we report measurements of ecosystem carbon dioxide fluxes, remotely sensed radiation absorbed by plants, and country - level crop yields taken during the European heatwave in 2003.

Y is defined as the change in radiation flux per degree temperature change.

In some alternative universe, they define forcing as net down - minus - up flux of radiation after surface temperatures have equilibrated.

A SOM is much cheaper and simpler to run compared to a full ocean model, but still reacts to things happening in the atmosphere, like changes in downwelling radiation or fluxes associated with surface wind.

Since once temperatures have equilibrated, the radiation budget will be in balance, down flux = up flux, the forcing under this definition is always zero.

Why doesn't ozzio see that the ground is net warmed by solar radiation and net cooled by thermal radiation and there is an equilibrium when you account for other fluxes too (as in the K&T budget)?

If less energy comes in, the governor will try to maintain the energy flux into the system (Willis's retarding the appearance of clouds) but once all stops have been pulled out (the sky is clear morning to night), then the engine slows down — slower air and water currents, less addition of heat to the polar areas, dissipation of what heat has accumulated by radiation into space and return cold water not getting the heating it formerly did.

«Because the solar - thermal energy balance of Earth [at the top of the atmosphere (TOA)-RSB- is maintained by radiative processes only, and because all the global net advective energy transports must equal zero, it follows that the global average surface temperature must be determined in full by the radiative fluxes arising from the patterns of temperature and absorption of radiation.»

Sea ice with its strong seasonal and interannual variability (Fig. 1) is a very critical component of the Arctic system that responds sensitively to changes in atmospheric circulation, incoming radiation, atmospheric and oceanic heat fluxes, as well as the hydrological cycle1, 2.

Temperature at 100hPa changes at 20 ° -30 ° latitude in both hemispheres with the change in solar radiation as represented by 10.7 Flux.