Sentences with phrase «radiative energy at»

As the ice melts, the gases rise — and in the case of the planet, when those gases enter the atmosphere, they increase the radiative energy at the planet's surface.

Planck's function can be used at particular wavelenghts, but it describes the emission of radiative energy at all wavelenghts.

The resulting reduction in radiative energy at Earth's surface may have attenuated evaporation and its energy equivalent, the latent heat flux (LH), leading to a slowdown of the water cycle.

So it seems to me that the simple way of communicating a complex problem has led to several fallacies becoming fixed in the discussions of the real problem; (1) the Earth is a black body, (2) with no materials either surrounding the systems or in the systems, (3) in radiative energy transport equilibrium, (4) response is chaotic solely based on extremely rough appeal to temporal - based chaotic response, (5) but at the same time exhibits trends, (6) but at the same time averages of chaotic response are not chaotic, (7) the mathematical model is a boundary value problem yet it is solved in the time domain, (8) absolutely all that matters is the incoming radiative energy at the TOA and the outgoing radiative energy at the Earth's surface, (9) all the physical phenomena and processes that are occurring between the TOA and the surface along with all the materials within the subsystems can be ignored, (10) including all other activities of human kind save for our contributions of CO2 to the atmosphere, (11) neglecting to mention that if these were true there would be no problem yet we continue to expend time and money working on the problem.

Not exact matches

Similarly, many studies that attempt to examine the co-variability between Earth's energy budget and temperature (such as in many of the pieces here at RC concerning the Spencer and Lindzen literature) are only as good as the assumptions made about base state of the atmosphere relative to which changes are measured, the «forcing» that is supposedly driving the changes (which are often just things like ENSO, and are irrelevant to radiative - induced changes that will be important for the future), and are limited by short and discontinuous data records.

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-.

rise is flawed & suggests one based on net (radiative) energy forcing — what do you at realclimate think about this?

There are multiple non-radiative energy fluxes at the surface (latent and sensible heat fluxes predominantly) which obviously affect the atmospheric temperature profiles, but when it comes to outer paces, that flux is purely radiative.

Radiative physics certainly applies at the surface, but no one (Andy, myself, or anyone else) said that radiation is the only component of the surface energy budget.

Most of the [deep] ocean is uber cold and retains very little heat.The oceans and land are in radiative balance, that means the energy they get goes back out to space over 24 hours [at the equator].

I do happen to understand radiative energy transfer at a reasonable level — at least enough to understand than when the surface loses energy via radiation, its temperature drops.

where is the vertically integrated energy flux in the atmosphere, is the net radiative energy input to an atmospheric column (the difference between absorbed shortwave radiation and emitted longwave radiation), and is the oceanic energy uptake at the surface.

The radiative absorption capability of CO2 allows atmospheric molecules to reach a higher temperature than that imparted to them by energy at the surface so they rise to a higher location than would be predicted from their weight and their individual gas constants.

Several runs with the model under future emissions scenarios where the radiative imbalance is known exactly and a distinct energy imbalance at TOA was occurring nonetheless featured several stases in surface temperatures for more than a decade.

Your hypothesis assumes that increased absorption of energy in the troposphere will be transmitted to the surface by convection, since radiative transfer doesn't change if the temperature remains constant, and the radiative imbalance at the TOA wouldn't change.

The parameterization of the interactions are at all levels; from estimation of the geometric characterization of the aerosols, to the numbers of particles, to connections with several important aspects of clouds, and finally to the interactions with radiative energy transport.

The energy balance at the glacier surface shows that the greatest energy available to melt ice comes from the radiative balance.

A change in radiative characteristics alone does not make more energy available because solar insolation at TOA remains the same, mass stays the same and gravity stays the same.

As you say, convection uses up a lot of energy too and also counters the idea of radiative heat transfer as a big ticket item because «hot» CO2 molecules only remain so for a brief fraction of a second before they collide with N2 or O2 to warm that localised parcel of air; which then rises to attain equilibrium T somewhere higher and at a COLDER temp so no rad Transf!!!

Jim Cripwell: «The problem I have understanding this, is that radiative transfer models seem to only look at the transfer of energy through the atmosphere, by radiation.

The problem I have understanding this, is that radiative transfer models seem to only look at the transfer of energy through the atmosphere, by radiation.

«It is widely assumed that variations in Earth's radiative energy budget at large time and space scales are small.

Because the temperature is lower at higher altitudes, less energy is emitted, causing a positive radiative forcing.

RE: sky says: (August 10, 2010 at 4:54 pm) «From the macro perspective of geophysics, that question is largely mooted by the fact that radiative transfer does not operate as the sole means of thermal energy transfer from surface to space.»

«Because the solar - thermal energy balance of Earth [at the top of the atmosphere (TOA)-RSB- is maintained by radiative processes only, and because all the global net advective energy transports must equal zero, it follows that the global average surface temperature must be determined in full by the radiative fluxes arising from the patterns of temperature and absorption of radiation.»

Phil The time spent by an individual molecule in a particular state is extremely small at atmospheric conditions, orders of magnitude less than the mean radiative lifetime which is why emission is extremely unlikely, and most of the energy ends up thermalized.

Are the GCM calculations of the radiative - energy budget at the TOA in accord with measured data?

Looking again at the change in the TOA energy balance, we call this change the effective radiative forcing or radiative flux perturbation RFP.

Energy loss at altitude only occurs through IR radiation to space from radiative gases, mainly H2O.

Because of their critical role in radiating energy to space and driving convective circulation, radiative gases act to cool our atmosphere at all concentrations above 0.0 ppm.

But looking at the magnitudes reported, it is unlikely that they will shift estimates of radiative energy gained by more than 3 % (downwards) for the models which have high sensitivity, which is basically all of the CMIP GCMs.

It's just fundamental physics that this large radiative forcing must result in global warming until the Earth reaches a new energy equilibrium at a higher temperature.

Konrad says: April 18, 2013 at 8:04 pm Radiative cooling at altitude is critical for continued convective circulation... Energy loss at altitude is just as important for convective circulation as energy input near the suEnergy loss at altitude is just as important for convective circulation as energy input near the suenergy input near the surface.

Steve Fitzpatick is summarizing important aspects of radiative energy transport and its interaction with material in the Earth's atmosphere, at Jeff Id's tAV.

There is little reason to suspect that the Earth's gaseous radiative layer at close to 255 K would lose energy at anywhere near that rate.

«Radiative energy transport, on the other hand, depends only on the difference of the local matter and radiation temperatures at a single point in space.

«Our climate simulations, using a simplified three - dimensional climate model to solve the fundamental equations for conservation of water, atmospheric mass, energy, momentum and the ideal gas law, but stripped to basic radiative, convective and dynamical processes, finds upturns in climate sensitivity at the same forcings as found with a more complex global climate model»

The fundamental hypothesis is that at some time in the past and over some unspecified time - averaging period that on a whole - planet basis radiative energy transport attained a state of equilibrium; out - going energy = in - coming energy.

Just think about the even more simplified model where there is a isotope decay heat source at the center of the earth that generates sufficient energy to have a net outward radiative flux of 235 W / m ^ 2 at the Earth's surface.

There is never a state of instantaneous radiative energy transport equilibrium at the TOA, so these assertions must refer to some kind of quasi-equilibrium, again over some as yet un-specified time period, in which there are some degrees of departure from equilibrium with both net incoming or net out - going states.

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.

T represents the amount of energy available from all sources to maintain the constant flow that keeps the atmosphere off the surface AND achieves radiative balance at the top of the atmosphere.

how does 6μ to 20μ wavelength of radiative heat energy being absorbed, scattered, diffused what ever mechanism you can invent, by 400 ppm volumetric density of CO2 with molecule size of 3.2 Angstrom, which means your purple ball size is ~ 1/3000 of your sun light yellow ball at atomspheric temperature of 15 C?

Our climate simulations, using a simplified three - dimensional climate model to solve the fundamental equations for conservation of water, atmospheric mass, energy, momentum and the ideal gas law, but stripped to basic radiative, convective and dynamical processes, finds upturns in climate sensitivity at the same forcings as found with a more complex global climate model [66].

The point is that absorbed energy which got there via a radiative process at depth can not get back out by the same mechanism.

Miller N. B., M. D. Shupe, C. J. Cox, D. Noone, P. O. G. Persson and K. Steffen (February 2017): Surface energy budget responses to radiative forcing at Summit, Greenland.

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.

When partnered with cloud remote sensing observations the radiation measurements and retrievals allow the characterization of cloud and aerosol radiative effects at the surface, which is essential in order to quantify the amount of radiative energy available at the surface to interact with heating the air, evaporating water, and interacting with clouds and greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.

The shape of the CO2 band is such that, once saturated near the center over sufficiently small distances, increases in CO2 don't have much affect on the net radiative energy transfer from one layer of air to the other so long as CO2 is the only absorbing and emitting agent — but increases in CO2 will reduce the LW cooling of the surface to space, the net LW cooling from the surface to the air, the net LW cooling of the atmosphere to space (except in the stratosphere), and in general, it will tend to reduce the net LW cooling from a warmer to cooler layer when at least one of those layers contains some other absorbing / emitting substance (surface, water vapor, clouds) or is space)

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.