Sentences with phrase «radiative cooling which»

It's because both land and ocean surfaces are heated by shortwave solar radiation and where aerosols reflect SWR equally well over land or water and where greenhouse gases work by retarding the rate of radiative cooling which is not equal over land and water.

Not exact matches

«We estimate that their total radiative forcing is around -1.3 [watts / meter2],» which is a cooling effect, he says.

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.

Physicists have achieved record temperature reductions of more than 40 °C using radiative cooling, which beams heat through the atmosphere

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.

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).

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.

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.

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-.

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).

@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).

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 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.

When Arctic sea ice opens up more it exposes more water to evaporative and radiative cooling both of which are nullified when ice covers the water.

The issue which debunks climate science is its radiative greenhouse effect violating basic thermodynamics, not whether the atmosphere retains heat overnight because it doesn't have time to cool to 2.7 K.

El Nino comes with its own cooling phase which happens to be radiative restoration towards the equilibrium state.

For an atmosphere with a pressure gradient in which the gases are free to move, adding radiative gases to the atmosphere will only speed up convective circulation and tropospheric cooling.

Without radiative gases, the surface would be ~ 255 K — which is much cooler than the surface or lower atmosphere with radiative gases.

Experiment 5 shows why greater radiative cooling of the night land surface will not result in significantly greater conductive cooling of an atmosphere in which the gases are free to move.

Basically, for an atmosphere in which the gases are free to move, the cooling effect of radiative gases far outweighs their warming effect.

Hence all the radiative - convective «models» since Manabe (1967) which assume a «radiative cooling of the surface» and forget evaporation are baseless: 71 % of the surface of globe is covered by oceans, and an additional 20 % of the surface covered by vegetation, driving evapotranspiration.

The evaporative, conductive and radiative processes combined then set up a thermal gradient causing an upward flow of energy from water to air from where that 1 mm layer touches the ocean bulk below, up across the cooler layer then to the Knudsen layer by reversing the normal (warm at the top and cool at the bottom) temperature gradient which exists from that 1 mm layer down to the ocean bottom.

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.

The results of this analysis indicate that observed temperature after 1998 is consistent with the current understanding of the relationship among global surface temperature, internal variability, and radiative forcing, which includes anthropogenic factors that have well known warming and cooling effects.

Radiative forcing is a measure of the change in boundary conditions, to which the climate system responds by either warming (in the case of positive radiative forcing; more energy coming in than going out) or cooling (negative radiative Radiative forcing is a measure of the change in boundary conditions, to which the climate system responds by either warming (in the case of positive radiative forcing; more energy coming in than going out) or cooling (negative radiative radiative forcing; more energy coming in than going out) or cooling (negative radiative radiative forcing).

As such, we find that recent global temperature records are consistent with the existing understanding of the relationship among global surface temperature, internal variability, and radiative forcing, which includes anthropogenic factors with well known warming and cooling effects.

The skin itself cools by about 0.3 or 0.4 K due to radiative fluxes at the skin surface, which is a change that is two orders of magnitude greater than the alleged heat change in the skin layer induced by GHGs.

D Cotton June 15, 2013 at 6:38 am The whole of the pseudo physics of greenhouse effects and assumed heating of the surface by back radiation (or «radiative forcing») is trying to utilise the Stefan - Boltzmann equation which only relates to bodies in a vacuum losing all their energy by radiation without any conduction or evaporative cooling.

Steve I will ask you to show the radiative heat transfer equation in which you input an emission from another body, gas / solid or fluid and show where it lowers the rate of cooling.

So, to sum up, in Venus we see a planet in which radiative cooling seems nearly nonexistent, and which sustains ambient temperatures far in excess of what Mercury achieves even after 20 or so Earth days of straight sunshine at an intensity roughly 4 times that of Venus!

The lapse rate means that radiation is reaching space from ever - cooler regions — which also means that radiative efficacy decreases.

-LCB- 9.4, Box 9.2 -RCB- • The observed reduction in surface warming trend over the period 1998 to 2012 as compared to the period 1951 to 2012, is due in roughly equal measure to a reduced trend in radiative forcing and a cooling contribution from natural internal variability, which includes a possible redistribution of heat within the ocean (medium confidence).

In fact, that's exactly what we would expect from a super-strong greenhouse effect: the whole point of the greenhouse effect is that it decreases the rate at which the planet can cool, by decreasing radiative efficacy at (local) thermal wavelengths.

Increased temperature will increase the absolute humidity according to the Clausius - Claperyon equation; a larger amount of water vapor will decrease the density of air, all else being equal, which will increase convection and the relative amount of adiabatic versus radiative cooling.

But the radiative cooling is time dependent, and a steeper lapse rate will increase convection and decrease the time over which a rising parcel can radiate heat away, increasing the relative amount of adiabatic versus radiative cooling.