Sentences with phrase «radiative energy coming»

When you change the conditions of radiative energy coming in, the temperature of the CO2 will need to adjust in order to radiate it away.

Not exact matches

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.

The point isn't a «perpetual increase in atmospheric pressure» — that's a misnomer — if you consider the MASS of the atmosphere that is continuously «pumped» from cold air to hot air to cold air again, high up in the atmosphere — that creates «potential energy» from the kinetic energy of the convection — adiabatic expansion of the atmosphere is the result — the adiabatic compression occurs on the return trip of the previously warmed (from radiative energy) air as it completes the «cycle» as it comes back down!

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

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.

The accumulated energy has to come from something affecting the radiative balance of the planet, not just distributional factors.

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).

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.

Physical science is highly constrained by what is known about energy budgets, paleoclimate and radiative transfer in gases, and alternate hypotheses are hard to come by as the skeptics well know by now after a decade of trying.

How can it be called no - feedback when the base temperature used in the calculation is for a planet that is surrounded by material that reflects part of the in - coming SW radiative energy and in the case of Earth that material is phases of water?