Sentences with phrase «radiative balance -rcb-»

That's a lot of potential for warming, all without ANY change in radiative balance.

Our emissions of GHGs are taking what likely operated as a feedback during the Quaternary cycles and making it a primary forcing of the Earth's radiative balance (or imbalance in this case).

As I wrote in an earlier in - line reply, there are other factors that influence temp which are not considered a forcing, eg ENSO (which redistributes heat and there) also influence the atmospheric temp without affecting the radiative balance at TOA.

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.

And why compute the radiative balance using the mean global temperature when what (approximately) has an influence is the fourth root of the average fourth power of temperatures.

Note that in the back - of - envelope calculation that Fred provides, where he takes the derivative of the Stefan - Boltzmann equation, he is using the emission temperature (where radiative balance is set), not the surface temperature.

Easiest of all is that you explain how a cold body can heat a warmer body or how you can have a system in radiative balance yet heating up too.

The «forcing» by the way is just a measure of how the net radiative balance of the planet is perturbed by a change in solar irradiance, greenhouse gases, etc..

15) No mention of radiative balance, despite this being necessary to enable use of solar ΔT calculated above, hence the lack of correct application of this formula.

12) All previous work now abandoned for instrument measurement which can only show the overall effects of the radiative balance, not its explanation

Here, the GHE will, for all intents and purposes, be defined as the set of conditions that are responsible for discrepancy between the observed global mean surface temperature of a planet and that predicted based on the energy flux received from the sun, rather than being restricted to a mere radiative balance.

(Note: this relies on the earth coming back into radiative balance via changes in surface temperature).

But because the atmosphere blocks infrared, the planet must emit more infrared into the atmosphere, so that radiative balance is maintained.

The radiative balance is maintained for the planet as a whole.

Radiative balance is the real point.

I'm still in high school, but I would love to study physical climatology (especially radiative balance and attribution) after I graduate.

I have given a number of links above to where this issue has been debated before and it is summed up by this: The AGW GMST is incorrect because it does not allow for this effect, that is: (A + B) ^ 4 > A ^ 4 + B ^ 4; as Mait shows you can have an average temperature which does not reflect the radiative balance of the Moon and vice-versa.

Comparison with independent data, such as the top of atmosphere (TOA) radiative balance also provides insight (32).

The problem of obtaining a realistic value for the absorptivity to emissivity ratio for all the entities at Earth's surface, and in its atmosphere, that participate in the radiative balance is a formidable task.

I still have radiative balance, which seems to me to be the real the point here.

Over this five year time span, the latest observations appear to show that the top of the atmosphere has been in an averaged state of radiative balance.

As far as I can tell, that's just gibberish — what datasets were «averaged» and what do you mean by «Radiative balance»?

The reason why a 1 / S ^ 2 prior is noninformative is that estimates of climate sensitivity depend on comparing changes in temperature with changes in -LCB- forcing minus the Earth's net radiative balance (or its proxy, ocean heat uptake)-RCB-.

For the real earth, with a significant heat capacity and significant atmospheric and ocean transport, the one summary number that has meaning is the average of T ^ 4 over the surface of the earth... That is what is going to go into determination of the global surface radiative balance.

Here is a more correct way to say things: When one considers convection, the best quantity to consider is the radiative balance at the top of the atmosphere.

The greenhouse effect, by affecting the rate at which the earth emits radiation back out into space for a given surface temperature, causes the earth's temperature to warm in order to maintain radiative balance.

By radiative balance, this level will have a temperature of ~ 255 K.

This is just pernicious nonsense that can only fly with someone who has never actually done a simple radiative balance calculation.

What he shows is that a change in the radiative balance between the surface and the atmosphere even by a larger amount, such as 10 W / m ^ 2 would result in only a very small surface temperature change while a change in the greenhouse effect (i.e., the radiative balance between the earth and space) by 10 W / m ^ 2 results in a much larger surface temperature change (almost 2 orders of magnitude larger if I recall correctly).

There is a nice radiative balance theory that made one correct prediction about subsequent climate change (ignoring for now the epochs when there was no warming); should it be believed?

That is determined by consideration of the absorption of the atmosphere of terrestrial radiation (and radiation emitted by the atmosphere), which essentially ends up determining at what altitude the temperature has to be determined via radiative balance between the Earth system (earth + atmosphere) and the sun and space [which for the earth system with its current albedo is ~ 255 K].

«the greenhouse effect reduces the rate of energy loss out into space (for a fixed surface temperature), requiring a higher average surface temperature to restore radiative balance.»

Radiative balance of the earth system then sets the temperature at this level in the atmosphere and the temperature at the surface basically follows from the lapse rate.

If the atmosphere contained no IR - absorbing substances, then all the IR emitted by the earth's surface would escape into space and radiative balance would dictate that the earth's average surface temperature (or really the average of emissivity * T ^ 4 where T is the absolute temperature and the emissivity of most terrestrial materials in the wavelength range of interest is very close to 1) is set by the condition that the earth must radiate as much energy as it absorbs from the sun.

E.g., given that the net radiative balance at the top of the atmosphere remains negative, which certainly indicates continued warming, Trenberth's studies suggest deep ocean uptake of most of the recent heating.

In the absence of absorption of terrestrial radiation by the atmosphere (and with the other caveats about still having the same albedo and such), that average temperature would have to be 255 K at the surface because of radiative balance and then the temperature would decrease with height at the lapse rate from there.

It is not just a «delay»; the greenhouse effect reduces the rate of energy loss out into space (for a fixed surface temperature), requiring a higher average surface temperature to restore radiative balance.

As a result, the earth system heats up until radiative balance is restored.

So, that is what we came up with — A few very simple models, such as the one that involves 3 objects: one object A producing thermal energy and radiating energy at a fixed rate, two other objects B and C whose temperature is determined via radiative balance with object A and empty space, with a geometry such that the temperature of object B is higher than that of object C. And, what we wanted to illustrate is that the object C «warms» B in the colloquial sense of the word... i.e., that the presence of object C causes B to be at a higher temperature than if C is absent.

So to argue for the insignificance of the thermosphere to radiative balance it is not sufficient to point to its small mass and number of molecules — one must accompany this with physics showing for instance the mean free path of photons between interactions with air molecules to be sufficiently long that the thermosphere will not significantly affect outgoing flux.

Radiative physics (or even radiative balance) is handwaving.

This indicates a net feedback factor of f = 3 - 4, because either of these forcings would cause the earth's surface temperature to warm 1.2 - 1.3 °C to restore radiative balance with space, if other factors remained unchanged.

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.

By showing that (a) there are no c ommon physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effect b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 C a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.

And radiative balance at the surface won't be achieved by a change in temperature at the surface of 0.0005 K.

Aerosols not only affect the radiative balance at the top of the atmosphere but also exert a forcing on the hydrological cycle (e.g., Ramanathan et al., 2001a).

It is the principal human - caused greenhouse gas that affects the Earth's radiative balance.

Most commonly I find the assumption that the radiative balance and equilibrium calculations (ignoring non-radiative transfer) are directly relevant to the dynamic climate, to at least the first significant figure and at a short time frame.

All else equal, the surface that is in radiative balance moves up as GHGs increase.

It is the principal greenhouse gas that affects the Earth's radiative balance.