Sentences with phrase «radiative balance as»

I'm not using radiative balance as a mechanism, but as the method of identifying where the mechanism will lead

Not exact matches

«Fire is losing heat through radiative and convective heat transfer and it is gaining heat as energy is produced as a result of combustion, so it is an energy balance problem.

Stratospheric cooling as a result of excess CO2 does influence ozone recovery, and ozone changes in the troposphere and stratosphere to have effects on radiative balance of the planet.

I think the actual point that we were making was that the cloud feedback (how clouds change as a function of the temperature, circulation, humidity etc., and how that impacts the radiative balance) is not being calculated here.

However, practices differ significantly on some key aspects, in particular, in the use of initialized forecast analyses as a tool, the explicit use of the historical transient record, and the use of the present day radiative imbalance vs. the implied balance in the pre-industrial as a target.»

Earth's energy balance In response to a positive radiative forcing F (see Appendix A), such as characterizes the present - day anthropogenic perturbation (Forsteret al., 2007), the planet must increase its net energy loss to space in order to re-establish energy balance (with net energy loss being the difference between the outgoing long - wave (LW) radiation and net incoming shortwave (SW) radiation at the top - of - atmosphere (TOA)-RRB-.

While it is true that changing stratospheric ozone levels do impact the planets radiative balance (and vica versa) it is a 2nd order issue and global warming and ozone depletion should be viewed as two separate issues.

Given the economic tenor of many news stories, an analogy to inflation may be useful in clarifying the idea of slow but steady radiative bracket creep, as the CO2 forcing can be outlined in terms of its effect on the radiative balance, which reduces to watts / M2 and their rate of change.

As an analogy, if I told you that I was going to paint my white car black and that I expected it would get hotter on sunny days as a result, you would probably start asking questions about what the temperature of the paint was when I applied it and how those molecules heated up or cooled down, ignoring the relevant factor which is this: By painting the car black, I am changing the car's albedo and thus changing the radiative balance between the car and the sun on sunny dayAs an analogy, if I told you that I was going to paint my white car black and that I expected it would get hotter on sunny days as a result, you would probably start asking questions about what the temperature of the paint was when I applied it and how those molecules heated up or cooled down, ignoring the relevant factor which is this: By painting the car black, I am changing the car's albedo and thus changing the radiative balance between the car and the sun on sunny dayas a result, you would probably start asking questions about what the temperature of the paint was when I applied it and how those molecules heated up or cooled down, ignoring the relevant factor which is this: By painting the car black, I am changing the car's albedo and thus changing the radiative balance between the car and the sun on sunny days.

So a local spike in precipitation releases a lot of heat — but as the heat increases, this negatively affects the vapor - > water transition (precipitation, or raindrop formation), since warm air holds more water then cool air — and so the limit on precipitation vis - a-vis the radiative balance of the atmosphere appears.

Thus there is convection within the troposphere that (to a first approximation) tends to sustain some lapse rate profile within the layer — that itself can vary as a function of climate (and height, location, time), but given any relative temperature distribution within the layer (including horizontal and temporal variations and relationship to variable CSD contributors (water vapor, clouds)-RRB-, the temperature of the whole layer must shift to balance radiative fluxes into and out of the layer (in the global time averae, and in the approximation of zero global time average convection above the troposphere), producing a PRt2 (in the global time average) equal to RFt2.

In general: even if the stratosphere as a whole cools (in terms of a decrease in total flux going out, to balance radiative forcings + radiative response from below), this doesn't necessarily mean cooling occurs throughout; there could be some portions that warm.

Likewise, I know that the average radiative balance of the earth has been mathematically determined but I do not think that we are measuring actual radiative gains and losses over the entire spectrum well enough as yet.

Matthew Marler, those other surface fluxes do nothing to restore the radiative balance of the earth as seen from space.

Then, if compositional changes occur, involving changes in the net radiative balance of the entire atmosphere the climate zones will shift as the atmosphere has to work more hard or less hard to maintain top of atmosphere energy balance.

For instance, radiative transfer models (measuring heat balance) are quite well verified, and accurately predict the rise in the temperature (and hence energy) of the atmosphere as the CO2 level increases.

The resultant heating balances the negative net radiative flux as long as it is above a threshold R C, below which no conventional monsoon exists.

«Radiative forcing is a measure of the influence a factor has in altering the balance of incoming and outgoing energy in the Earth - atmosphere system and is an index of the importance of the factor as a potential climate change mechanism.

The exact balance of the energy transferred from the surface via radiative and convective processes seems not to be accurately known (as far as I have read to date), but non-radiative processes dominate.

The atmopshere will respond to a change of radiative balance by changes in conduction, convection and the latent heat of water, as well as radiation effects.

A radiative imbalance exists only so long as it takes for the balance to be restored at a higher temperature.

He does not look at the top of atmosphere balance to see how it remains unbalanced under his modified state, so he hasn't looked at radiative equilibrium, but some kind of transient response, as far as I can tell.

If something occurs to cause an imbalance between incoming and outgoing radiation, then you can't, as a matter of principle, say that the system will change to maintain radiative balance, it depends on the system.

As described, the whole temperature profile gives rise to the radiative transport, which gives rise to the heating at ground level, which gradually raises the whole temperature profile (via convection) until radiative balance is achieved.

Extra heat from all sources — including the interior of the planet, fossil fuel burning, nuclear fission, solar radiance, north - south asymetry and — the big one — cloud radiative forcing — is retained in planetary systems as longwave emissions and shortwave reflectance adjusts to balance the global energy budget.

A comparison of the radiative equilibrium temperatures with the observed temperatures has indicated the extent to which the other atmospheric processes, such as convection, large - scale circulation, and condensation processes, influence the thermal energy balance of the system.

It is found as the additional result that the radiative heat transfer qr has small influence on the integral heat balance.

Radiation levels adjust automatically so as to be in balance in so far as net radiative flux at TOA.

To clarify, consider the change in the net radiative balance at the surface as having a shortwave and longwave component

These impact the overall energy balance of the planet, known as radiative forcing, which is what causes the global temperature to rise.

It's an appropriate definition for looking to the changes well past 2100 as Earth settles into equilibrium again (by which I mean approximate radiative energy balance between solar input and thermal emission to space).

As you point out, there is no question that adding CO2 to the atmosphere affects what I call the «radiative balance» for want of a better term.

Clouds and condensation are the balancing outgoing delivery mechanism of heat on this planet, and overwhelm the radiative effect with convection, and as a bonus also block incoming radiation, especially in the tropics, leading to a natural, self regulating thermostat effect.

As I posted above, this leads to the non-sensical result that one thick shell results in a totally different radiative balance than 10 thin shells.

A negative feedback that occurs is that because the lapse rate in a warmer climate is expected to decrease (i.e., the upper troposphere is expected to warm more rapidly than the surface on average), it doesn't take as large a surface warming to produce enough warming in the mid / upper - troposphere to restore radiative balance.

In a sense, what Willis has done is manage to make the same mistake as the people who think that the Earth is in «radiative balance» and try to work out a tedious budget of everything going in and out.

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

2) Failing to acknowledge that natural variations in the effective radiating height of the atmosphere occur all the time as a result of the ever changing balance between different non radiative processes within the atmosphere.

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.

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

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.

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).

A: The volume integral (heat balance equation) as presented in Pielke (2003) http://blue.atmos.colostate.edu/publications/pdf/R-247.pdf suggests that the changes in ocean heat storage averaged over a year are a snapshot of the radiative imbalance at the top of the atmosphere.

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

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

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.

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

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.

There are many ways to reconfigure the temperature in the column and at the surface to balance the radiative change due to CO2, but I would submit the only objective one is to change the whole column and surface by the same temperature and find out what that temperature is independently for each global column (as I posted elsewhere here regarding MODTRAN).

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.