Sentences with phrase «radiative energy from»

1 - The total net radiative energy from the Sun to the Earth is approximately 239W / m ^ 2 (16W / m ^ 2 to the surface + 78W / m ^ 2 to the atmosphere) and the total net radiative energy from the Earth to space is 239W / m ^ 2 (169W / m ^ 2 +30 W / m ^ 2 + 40W / m ^ 2).

This is my way of showing that Sun radiative energy is mostly in the «shortwave» visible and near - visible region (about 0.3 μ to 1μ) and that radiative energy from the warmed Earth is mostly in the «longwave» infrared region (about 6μ to 20μ).

Would it have been so difficult to terminate the smaller atmospheric absorption arrow in the atmosphere itself and then have a separate set of arrows (both toward the surface and into space) showing the radiative energy from the atmosphere?

Not exact matches

Using global climate models and NASA satellite observations of Earth's energy budget from the last 15 years, the study finds that a warming Earth is able to restore its temperature equilibrium through complex and seemingly paradoxical changes in the atmosphere and the way radiative heat is transported.

Because black holes can not be observed directly, Schulze's team instead measured emissions from oxygen ions [O III] around the black hole and accretion disk to determine the radiative efficiency; i.e. how much energy matter releases as it falls into the black hole.

An object too small to be an ordinary star because it can not produce enough energy by fusion in its core to compensate for the radiative energy it loses from its surface.

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.

Mission officials say the New Horizons navigation team discovered radiative thermal energy from the spacecraft's nuclear power source drove the probe slightly off course.

Surface radiative energy budget plays an important role in the Arctic, which is covered by snow and ice: when the balance is positive, more solar radiation from the Sun and the Earth's atmosphere arrives on the Earth's surface than is emitted from it.

Combining these new images and photometry with ancilliary data from the literature, we undertook simultaneous multi-wavelength modelling of the discs» radial profiles and spectral energy distributions using three different methodologies: single annulus, modified black body, and a radiative transfer code.

Referring back to 24 November 2005, raypierre describes the overall assumption of the radiative process analysis that concludes with a surface temperature output, saying that the radiating temperature «has to stay the same, since the planet still has to get rid of the same amount of energy absorbed from incident sunlight.»

Concluding: not only radiative process contribute to the transfer of energy from the surface to outer space.

APE produced from kinetic energy may take the form of temperature variations that are farther from radiative equilibrium, and thus may be destroyed by differential radiative heating.

Starting from an old equilbrium, a change in radiative forcing results in a radiative imbalance, which results in energy accumulation or depletion, which causes a temperature response that approahes equilibrium when the remaining imbalance approaches zero — thus the equilibrium climatic response, in the global - time average (for a time period long enough to characterize the climatic state, including externally imposed cycles (day, year) and internal variability), causes an opposite change in radiative fluxes (via Planck function)(plus convective fluxes, etc, where they occur) equal in magnitude to the sum of the (externally) imposed forcing plus any «forcings» caused by non-Planck feedbacks (in particular, climate - dependent changes in optical properties, + etc.).)

Yup, but by definition as we add greenhouse gasses, we depart from equilibrium, so the processes do not cancel and there is a net flow of energy from radiative to kinetic.

Certainly any increase in air temperature from radiative forcings (apparently reasonably well modeled in the GCMs) is going to increase the temperature differential from ground to space, which will increase the vertical air velocity (ie increased hurricane strength) and DECREASE the residence time of energy in the air in the same manner that GHGs increase the residence time.

ie energy can easily move from conduction to radiative transport & back again etc..

Increasing the concentration of radiative gases in the atmosphere increases the speed of circulation in the Hadley, Ferrel and Polar convective cells, thereby increasing the strength of mechanical energy transport away from the surface and lower atmosphere.

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 fact is that Radiative Heat Transfer accounts for only 19 % of the overall transfer of energy from the surface to the atmosphere.

With funding from the U.S. Department of Energy, AER has developed the highly accurate and efficient radiative transfer code RRTMG for application to global models.

RealOldOne2 states that the greenhouse effect is real — he states that the increase radiative emission from GHGs results in the surface emitting less energy than it would if it were radiating straight to space as a result of sentient molecules.

«The IPCC has failed to convincingly explain the pause in terms of external radiative forcing from greenhouse gases...» — That's because the tropospheric pause has nothing to do with GH gases, which never «pause» in their action, bit rather, the pause has everything to do with natural variability in the rate of energy flow from ocean to atmosphere.

Hi, You state «The Earth and the atmosphere are warmer because of that [radiative] energy transfer» one - way from the Earth to the atmosphere.

Their observed height and mixing ability is a result of radiative characteristics supplementing the energy they acquire from the surface and that additional energy being diffused through the whole atmosphere by collisional activity.

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.

That uplift causes all the additional radiative energy to be converted from kinetic energy (which registers on sensors as heat) to potential energy (which does not register on sensors as heat).

«The net radiative energy flow will be from the hotter to the colder, HOWEVER, the colder object also radiates.

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.

However, the second law is not violated by the greenhouse effect, of course, since, during the radiative exchange, in both directions the net energy flows from the warmth to the cold.»

There was some mention of energy imbalance but I can not see how energy imbalance can be calculated from radiative forcing and heat uptake.

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

The exact balance of the energy transferred from the surface via radiative and convective processes seems not to be accurately known (as far as I have read to date), but non-radiative processes dominate.

The time span 1750 - 2000 is 2.5 times 1 century, therefore 0.63 x 2.5 = 1.575 Watts / sqm of more energy received from the Sun, rounded up makes 1.6 W / m ^ 2 of Radiative Forcing (RF) as it is labelled now by the IPCC.

I took this from wiki: he total solar irradiance (TSI) is the amount of solar radiative energy incident on the Earth's upper atmosphere.

ii) The real question is whether changes in radiative characteristics alone can result in energy being transferred from the radiative SDL to the mechanical AAL so as to add to the energy in that latterLoop and thereby significantly increase the temperature of atmosphere and surface by in turn increasing the time delay in the transmission of energy through the system.

There is a small effect from the radiative properties of the «GHG's», but they simply act as a sort of hybrid thermal / optical delay line which delays the flow of any single photon through the Sun / Earth / Atmosphere / Universe system by causing it to make multiple «bounces» through the system: surface / GHG / surface / GHG / escape to the energy free void of space.

The accumulation of energy in the global ocean from the second half of the C20th onwards is held by many to be unequivocal evidence that the climate system is in radiative disequilibrium.

And in any event Alan, satellite measurements of the radiative energy balance show that over the last 40 + years, the planet has acquired energy, in just the quantity that separate measurements indicate and in the bandwidths one would expect from CO2 - driven radiative forcing.

We present new evidence from a compilation of over two decades of accurate satellite data that the top - of - atmosphere (TOA) tropical radiative energy budget is much more dynamic and variable than previously thought.

Heat from the Sun is its thermal energy on the move by radiative transfer.

However there is no law that says radiative transfers have to balance, in fact we know from the law of conservation of energy that this isn't the case: a solar panel has no radiative equilibrium because the incoming radiation is converted into heat.

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.&raFrom 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.&rafrom 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.»

Extra heat from all sources — including the interior of the planet, fossil fuel burning, nuclear fission, solar radiance, north - south asymetry and — the big one — cloud radiative forcing — is retained in planetary systems as longwave emissions and shortwave reflectance adjusts to balance the global energy budget.

Greenhouse gases «trap» radiative energy because they absorbed IR radiation from the Earth's surface which then continually «bounces up and down».

The surface temperature response, T, to a given change in atmospheric CO2 is calculated from an energy balance equation for the surface, with heat removed either by a radiative damping term or by diffusion into the deep ocean.

These include the vertical motions of clouds, all the radiative - energy - transport characterizations of the non-vaporous (gaseous) phases of water in the clouds, the vertical locations of the cloud tops, the distributions of the non-vaporous phases of water within the clouds, and all aspects of precipitation of liquid - and solid - phase water from the clouds.

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 spFrom 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 spfrom surface to space.

So radiative transport is the reason the evolved isothermal atmosphere departs from a equipartition of energy distribution?