Sentences with phrase «radiative balance if»

Not exact matches

How about this: if I could point to a state change in the radiative balance of the earth that started 6 years ago, would you say unless that state change lasts 24 more years it's not climate change?

Guemas et al. (Nature Climate Change 2013) shows that the slower warming of the last ten years can not be explained by a change in the radiative balance of our Earth, but rather by a change in the heat storage of the oceans, and that this can be at least partially reproduced by climate models, if one accounts for the natural fluctuations associated with El Niño in the initialization of the models.

Thus if the sun were to become stronger by about 2 %, the TOA radiation balance would change by 0.02 * 1366 * 0.7 / 4 = 4.8 W / m2 (taking albedo and geometry into account) and this would be the radiative forcing (RF).

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 days.

I have tried to find some radiative forcing time - series to check if during the 1960s the radiation was balanced, but I haven't found anything.

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.

In fact if one looks at the heat balance of the oceans down to 2000M, which can not be driven to first order by surface related ocean cycles, we come to the conclusion that the earth is warming due to radiative imbalance.

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.

Detailed radiative balance can not be computed or compared with observation, if you have no observations, only computations from extrapolations, and insecure molecular and particulate data.

It clearly states that (a) emission of energy by radiation is accompanied with cooling of the surface (if no compensating changes prevent it), and (b) the tendency to a radiative equilibrium means that the emitter with the higher surface temperature will loose energy due to a negative net radiation balance until this net radiation balance becomes zero.

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.

If it can not warm the oceans and yet the radiative balance between solar energy in and radiative energy out has to be maintained then all that is left is for it to be ejected faster to space in order to maintain the radiative balance and if that happens then no change in the equilibrium temperature of the Earth can occuIf it can not warm the oceans and yet the radiative balance between solar energy in and radiative energy out has to be maintained then all that is left is for it to be ejected faster to space in order to maintain the radiative balance and if that happens then no change in the equilibrium temperature of the Earth can occuif that happens then no change in the equilibrium temperature of the Earth can occur.

My understanding is that a uniform prior in S (and hence, equivalently, a 1 / Y ^ 2 prior in Y) would be the correct uninformative reference prior (that which has least effect on the posterior PDF) if way stayed with Forster & Gregory's OLS regression method to estimate Y, if and only if the magnitude of the errors in measurements of the surface temperature were much less than combined errors in the measurements of forcings and net radiative balance, the opposite of what Forster & Gregory's error analysis showed.

If all farm animals disappeared, tomorrow, we could not measure the impact on the radiative balance of the atmosphere.

If anything else tries to disturb the temperature (or more accurately energy content) derived from those 3 characteristics alone then all one sees is a change in circulation adjusting the flow of energy throughput to keep top of atmosphere radiative balance stable.

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.

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.

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).

If you have good measurements of upper ocean and atmospheric temperatures, then if you had a good decade - long satellite record of the Earth's total radiative energy balance from space — say, if Triana has been launched to in the late 1990s — then you could use conservation of energy to calculate the rate of heat uptake by the deep ocean over the past ten yearIf you have good measurements of upper ocean and atmospheric temperatures, then if you had a good decade - long satellite record of the Earth's total radiative energy balance from space — say, if Triana has been launched to in the late 1990s — then you could use conservation of energy to calculate the rate of heat uptake by the deep ocean over the past ten yearif you had a good decade - long satellite record of the Earth's total radiative energy balance from space — say, if Triana has been launched to in the late 1990s — then you could use conservation of energy to calculate the rate of heat uptake by the deep ocean over the past ten yearif Triana has been launched to in the late 1990s — then you could use conservation of energy to calculate the rate of heat uptake by the deep ocean over the past ten years.