Sentences with phrase «radiative cooling in»

The upward motion is confined to such a small area, and the subsidence so slow, that one can not ignore the radiative cooling in the subsiding air.

These three sources speak of three entirely different things: a) the water vapor feedback, b) the carbon cycle feedback, and c) effects on precipitation of reduced longwave radiative cooling in the tropical lower troposphere.

The strength of radiative cooling in turn depends on the characteristics of the clouds formed by the condensed vapor.

One might even envision a system in which collector panels similar to trickle style swimming pool panel are glazed during the winter for efficient heat collection (like a Thomason trickle collector), and then the glazing panels are removed in the summer to provide efficient evapro - radiative cooling in the summer.

Thus, among competing bands, there may be net radiative cooling in the upper atmosphere or near TOA at longer wavelengths and net heating and shorter wavelengths.

This is plainly not true, as can be easily seen by computing the net radiative cooling in a radiative - convective model with a consistent surface energy budget.

However, global mean precipitation is controlled not by the availability of water vapour, but by a balance between the latent heat of condensation and radiative cooling in the troposphere.

«In addition to these regions, we can foresee applications for radiative cooling in off - the - grid areas of the developing world where air conditioning is not even possible at this time.

Not exact matches

The model calculations, which are based on data from the CLOUD experiment, reveal that the cooling effects of clouds are 27 percent less than in climate simulations without this effect as a result of additional particles caused by human activity: Instead of a radiative effect of -0.82 W / m2 the outcome is only -0.60 W / m2.

«No one had yet been able to surmount the challenges of daytime radiative cooling — of cooling when the sun is shining,» said Eden Rephaeli, a doctoral candidate in Fan's lab and a co-first-author of the paper.

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.

That's far from the worst flaw in his calculation, since his two biggest blunders are the neglect of the radiative cooling due to sulfate aerosols (known to be a critical factor in the period in question) and his neglect of the many links in the chain of physical effects needed to translate a top of atmosphere radiative imbalance to a change in net surface energy flux imbalance.

You've got the radiative physics, the measurements of ocean temperature and land temperature, the changes in ocean heat content (Hint — upwards, whereas if if was just a matter of circulation moving heat around you might expect something more simple) and of course observed predictions such as stratospheric cooling which you don't get when warming occurs from oceanic circulation.

It provides for the first time a high - fidelity technology demonstration of how you can use radiative sky cooling to passively cool a fluid and, in doing so, connect it with cooling systems to save electricity,» said Raman, who is co-lead author of the paper detailing this research, published in Nature Energy Sept. 4.

ENSO events, for example, can warm or cool ocean surface temperatures through exchange of heat between the surface and the reservoir stored beneath the oceanic mixed layer, and by changing the distribution and extent of cloud cover (which influences the radiative balance in the lower atmosphere).

ENSO events, for example, can warm or cool ocean surface temperatures through exchange of heat between the surface and the reservoir stored beneath the oceanic mixed layer, and by changing the distribution and extent of cloud cover (which influences the radiative balance in the lower atmosphere).

Small changes in oceanic or atmospheric circulation due to small changes in radiative equilibrium may translate in flooding here and drying there, warming here and cooling there, etc..

On the possibility of a changing cloud cover «forcing» global warming in recent times (assuming we can just ignore the CO2 physics and current literature on feedbacks, since I don't see a contradiction between an internal radiative forcing and positive feedbacks), one would have to explain a few things, like why the diurnal temperature gradient would decrease with a planet being warmed by decreased albedo... why the stratosphere should cool... why winters should warm faster than summers... essentially the same questions that come with the cosmic ray hypothesis.

In other words, the same natural forcings that appear responsible for the modest large - scale cooling of the LIA should have lead to a cooling trend during the 20th century (some warming during the early 20th century arises from a modest apparent increase in solar irradiance at that time, but the increase in explosive volcanism during the late 20th century leads to a net negative 20th century trend in natural radiative forcingIn other words, the same natural forcings that appear responsible for the modest large - scale cooling of the LIA should have lead to a cooling trend during the 20th century (some warming during the early 20th century arises from a modest apparent increase in solar irradiance at that time, but the increase in explosive volcanism during the late 20th century leads to a net negative 20th century trend in natural radiative forcingin solar irradiance at that time, but the increase in explosive volcanism during the late 20th century leads to a net negative 20th century trend in natural radiative forcingin explosive volcanism during the late 20th century leads to a net negative 20th century trend in natural radiative forcingin natural radiative forcing).

The troposphere is currently cooling radiatively at about 2K / day, and adding CO2 to the atmosphere generally increases the radiative cooling (primarily through increases in water vapor, though how these details play out also depend on the details of the surface budget).

In the case of Concentrated Solar Power that uses heliostats, one ought to be able to boost night time cooling by providing a low brightness temperature surface (the mirrors) to enhance radiative cooling, though the convective cooling will still dominate.

In the stratosphere, the increased radiative cooling with more CO2 is a ubiquitous feature of double - CO2 simulations and this leads to a drop in the temperature therIn the stratosphere, the increased radiative cooling with more CO2 is a ubiquitous feature of double - CO2 simulations and this leads to a drop in the temperature therin the temperature there.

As far as I know, if the only physical mechanism under consideration is the radiative cooling of the planet's surface (which was heated by shortwave solar radiation and reradiated at longer wavelengths in the infrared) via radiative transport, additional gas of any kind can only result in a higher equilibrium temperature.

Given the much more rapid respons time of the stratosphere to radiative forcings, there is (can be) some initial stratospheric cooling (or at least some cooling somewhere in the stratosphere), which consists of a transient component, and a component that remains at full equilibrium.

... interestingly in the grey gas case with no solar heating of the stratosphere, increasing the optical thickness of the atmosphere would result in an initial cooling of and in the vicinity of the skin layer (reduced OLR), and an initial radiative warming of the air just above the surface (increased backradiation)-- of course, the first of those dissappears at full equilibrium.

Because latent heat release in the course of precipitation must be balanced in the global mean by infrared radiative cooling of the troposphere (over time scales at which the atmosphere is approximately in equilibrium), it is sometimes argued that radiative constraints limit the rate at which precipitation can increase in response to increasing CO2.

The argument isn't actually as firm a constraint as generally believed, since the infrared radiative cooling of the atmosphere is affected by the temperature difference between air and the underlying surface, which can adjust to accommodate any amount of evaporation Nature wants to dump into the atmosphere (as shown in Pierrehumbert 1999 («Subtropical water vapor...» available here)-RRB-.

If you were in a situation where there was initially more precipitation than radiative cooling could handle, then the atmosphere could just warm up until the radiative cooling increased — though then you'd have to worry about how much the warming affects precipitation, etc..

In full equilibrium, at any given level, there may be some net radiative heating at some frequencies compensated by some net radiative cooling at other frequencies, with convection balancing the full spectrum radiative cooling of the troposphere and heating of the surface.

I made the same argument on the slowing of the tropical mass circulation in a warmer climate, based on Betts and Ridgway (JAS1989) and the difference of the slopes of the Clausius - Clapyron and the radiative cooling

In the pure radiative equilibrium, you can get it into a range where the grey model gives you surface warming and stratospheric cooling (that's in one of the problems), but you have to work at it a bit, and also remember to plot things in pressure coord, not optical depth coordinateIn the pure radiative equilibrium, you can get it into a range where the grey model gives you surface warming and stratospheric cooling (that's in one of the problems), but you have to work at it a bit, and also remember to plot things in pressure coord, not optical depth coordinatein one of the problems), but you have to work at it a bit, and also remember to plot things in pressure coord, not optical depth coordinatein pressure coord, not optical depth coordinates.

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.

In chapter 11.3.6.3 they conclude: ``... it is concluded that the hiatus is attributable, in roughly equal measure, to a decline in the rate of increase in effective radiative forcing (ERF) and a cooling contribution from internal variability (expert judgment, medium confidence)»In chapter 11.3.6.3 they conclude: ``... it is concluded that the hiatus is attributable, in roughly equal measure, to a decline in the rate of increase in effective radiative forcing (ERF) and a cooling contribution from internal variability (expert judgment, medium confidence)»in roughly equal measure, to a decline in the rate of increase in effective radiative forcing (ERF) and a cooling contribution from internal variability (expert judgment, medium confidence)»in the rate of increase in effective radiative forcing (ERF) and a cooling contribution from internal variability (expert judgment, medium confidence)»in effective radiative forcing (ERF) and a cooling contribution from internal variability (expert judgment, medium confidence)».

As I discussed in # 333, requiring a warmer lower part of the atmosphere, on warming further and emitting more IR, to cause a cooler part receiving the excess IR to cool further, violates radiative transfer principles and / or the Second Law.

The lapse rate within the troposphere is largely determined by convection, which redistributes any changes in radiative heating or cooling within the troposphere + surface so that all levels tend to shift temperature similarly (with some regional / latitudinal, diurnal, and seasonal exceptions, and some exceptions for various transient weather events).

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 warIn 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 warin 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 warin 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 the tugging on the temperature profile (by net radiant heating / cooling resulting from radiative disequilibrium at single wavelengths) by the absorption (and emission) by different bands, the larger - scale aspects of the temperature profile will tend to be shaped more by the bands with moderate amounts of absorption, while finer - scale variations will be more influenced by bands with larger optical thicknesses per unit distance (where there can be significant emission and absorption by a thinner layer).

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).

«Above about 50 km in altitude, the ozone heating effect diminishes in importance because of falling ozone concentrations, and radiative cooling becomes relatively more important.

@RI: More CO2 raises the optical depth (in layman speak, the top of the GHG radiative «fog» above which IR is free to radiate to space and cool).

The net effect of radiative gases in our atmosphere is cooling at all concentrations above 0.0 ppm.

Knowing the change in the non-radiative cooling of the Earth surface is as important as knowing the change in the radiative cooling, for computing the climate response to increased DWLWIR.

More CO2 raises the optical depth (in layman speak, the top of the GHG radiative «fog» above which IR is free to radiate to space and cool).

It is virtually certain that anthropogenic aerosols produce a net negative radiative forcing (cooling influence) with a greater magnitude in the NH than in the SH.

The water vapor cooled the Earth, the snow cooled the atmosphere with resulting increase in surface albedo which does reflect radiative heat, meaning the Earth gets less warm, not colder because of it.

warrenlb, nothing at that site supports your denial of the S - B basis of climate alarm, supports your neglect of the significance of rapid collisional vs. slow radiative decay of CO2 * in the troposphere, or supports your dismissal of CO2 * radiative decay as the source of stratospheric cooling.

Finally, you mention water vapour as a GHG... but water vapour is the main cooling component in the atmosphere, transporting heat from the surface to the radiative layer, so not really a true GHG.

In the tropics net radiative influx is negative, i.e. radiation cools the atmospheric column.

Absent radiative warming it will still warm through conduction and convection and it will cool radiatively because all matter above absolute zero radiates and I'm pretty sure the nitrogen in our atmosphere is matter and it has a temperature above absolute zero therefore it radiates a continuous black body spectrum characteristic of that temperature.

The climate sensitivity value tells us how much the planet will warm or cool in response to a given radiative forcing change.