Sentences with phrase «radiative flux from»

To accommodate the finite flux optical depth of the atmosphere and the existence of the transmitted radiative flux from the surface, the proper equations must be derived.

You get higher temperature because to get the required thermal equilibrium, you need more radiative flux from the Earth's surface.

Everything else, movement of water with different temperature up and down and back and forth is ocean dynamics and has got nothing to do with the assumed increased downward radiative flux from the atmosphere.

If you took a bowl of hot soup and surrounded it on all sides with ice, then the radiative flux from the ice does not heat the soup at all.

For example, if the emissivity of two bodies is very different, there can be more radiative flux from the cooler one.

The radiative flux from a surface at 350K would be nearly four (4) times that from a surface at 250K.

I disagree, the paper below shows that that even for deep midwinter Antarctica with extremely low humidity, clear skies conditions, the radiative flux from H2O vapour was more than twice that for CO2.

Spectral considerations matter despite what idiots who ignore them argue with their ridiculous sums of radiative flux from the Sun and the Earth as taught in Universities and alarmist sites.

Notice that in order for this to hold at some level, the gradient in σ * T ^ 4 has to be constant out to some large optical depth up and down from that level, to «insulate» the level from the perturbation radiative fluxes from perturbations to the pattern.

The reconstruction of radiative fluxes from atmospheric properties is a very difficult and tedious job and both the ISCCP and ERBE / CERES groups are putting a great deal of effort into producing detailed and carefully evaluated radiative flux datasets.

A lot of confusion seems to lie in not realizing that all the energy entering and leaving at the TOA is radiative, and as a result of this the effect of the non radiative fluxes from the surface (from latent heat of water and thermals) on the radiative budget has to be zero, because COE dictates that the atmosphere can not create any energy of its own.

Not exact matches

For this new idea to have merit, it had better have heat fluxes at least on par with the radiative forcing from CO2.

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.

The radiative effect of clouds on the shortwave fluxes is computed as a seasonally varying (but fixed from one year to the next) and spatially varying atmospheric albedo.

Its not like solar flux is being ignored; far from it, as many of the realclimate authors have written about the effects of solar radiative changes on the earth's climate in the peer reviewed literature.

Gerald Marsh offered this opinion in «A Global Warming Primer» (page 4 - excerpt) «Radiative forcing is defined as the change in net downward radiative flux at the tropopause resulting from any process that acts as an external agent to the climate system; it is generally measured iRadiative forcing is defined as the change in net downward radiative flux at the tropopause resulting from any process that acts as an external agent to the climate system; it is generally measured iradiative flux at the tropopause resulting from any process that acts as an external agent to the climate system; it is generally measured in W / m2.

If Victor wasn't so stupid & trollish I would suggest Rob Painting's «How Increasing Carbon Dioxide Heats The Ocean» over on SkS and, by way of preparation, the added quote from IPCC AR5 WG1 3.4.1 «The net air — sea heat flux is the sum of two turbulent (latent and sensible) and two radiative (shortwave and longwave) components.»

But the troposphere can still warm with an increased radiative cooling term because it is also balanced by heating through latent heat release, subsidence, solar absorption, increased IR flux from the surface, etc..

In this way, the response of LW fluxes (PR) and convection (CR) tend to spread the temperature response vertically from where forcings occur — not generally eliminating the effect of RF distribution over height, although in the case with convection driven by differential radiative heating within a layer, CR can to a first approximation evenly distribute a temperature response over such a layer.

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.).)

(where the trend in net monochromatic flux reverses) before reaching the ultimate saturation; if this situation came up, after each «pseudosaturation», the radiative forcing can still be estimated with a band - widenning effect outside the central region where the last «pseudosaturation» has taken effect, minus the contribution from whatever is happenning in the center (think in terms of positive and negative areas on the graph).

The effect of band widenning is a reduction in net upward LW flux (this is called the radiative forcing), which is proportional to a change in area under the curve (a graph of flux over the spectrum); the contribution from band widenning is equal to the amount by which the band widens (in units ν) multiplied by - Fνup (CO2).

The difference in radiant flux will be smaller between 222 K and 255 K, and larger between 288 K and 321 K, and it will take a greater GHE TOA forcing to reduce the effective radiating temperature (the temperature of a blackbody that would emit a radiative flux) at TOA from 288 K to 277 K as it would to reduce it from 277 K to 266 K, etc..

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 warm.

These must have an important effect on latent and sensible heat fluxes from the ocean to the atmosphere, and ultimately influence the TOA radiative imbalance and the ocean heat storage.

Using the modtran model on line I get a radiative forcing from 10 * atmospheric methane of 3.4 Watts / m2 (the difference in the instantaneous IR flux out, labeled Iout, between cases with and without 10x methane).

Matthew Marler, those other surface fluxes do nothing to restore the radiative balance of the earth as seen from space.

Radiative heating of the land surface in spring enhances sensible heat flux from the ground («Sensible»).

The notion that radiative fluxes are exempt from thermodynamic limits is a new one.

The higher frequency content in the temperature series by necessary assumption arises from other radiative forcings as well as natural heat flux oscillations.

Information on GOES - E and MSG processing to retrive sea surface temperature and radiative fluxes (presented in June 2016 at the Coordination Group for Meteorological Satellites 44): EUMETSAT OSI SAF: Ocean products from GEO satellites

You would do better to discuss why FG were not sure of their result for various practical reasons, e.g. the net radiative flux imbalance at the top of the atmosphere has only been measured for a very short time, and their study doesn't include albedo forcings from melting ice — if you're actually as interested in their results as you pretend to be.

I mentioned this detail of the low frequency variability in the control simulation of a GCM just to make the point that the strength of the radiative restoring on internal variability could be weaker than that for the forced response, making it harder to constrain the fraction of the trend due to internal variability from the sign of the heat flux alone.

«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.»

A comparison of CO2 and CH4 fluxes from eutrophic reservoirs suggests that eutrophication does little to change the net carbon balance of reservoirs, but greatly increases the atmospheric radiative forcing caused by these systems through the stimulation of CH4 production (figure 3).

But it is the departures from LTE, caused by and causing superimposed radiative fluxes at different temperatures etc

On the basis of the mean areal GHG fluxes in our data set, the majority (79 %) of CO2 equivalents from reservoirs occurred as CH4, with CO2 and N2O responsible for 17 % and 4 % of the radiative forcing, respectively, over the 100 - year timespan.

This is primarily based on the idea that the radiative flux would induce significant warming, but then the evaporation from the oceans and convective transport have a cooling effect.

Radiative flux to and from the earth and space is the big concern right?

«Uncertainty in any TOA radiative flux dataset results from a combination of factors including calibration, spectral sampling, angular sampling, spatial sampling, and temporal sampling, as well as algorithm changes.»

It is certainly far from obvious that there will be any consistent link between a GCMs fidelity to observed recent TOA radiative fluxes and the realism of its projected 2090 warming.

The TOA imbalance minus the net surface flux (from * all * fluxes, latent, radiative, etc.) gives the rate of change of the atmospheric energy content.

«in an isotropic non GHG world, the net would be zero, as the mean conduction flux would equalize, but in our earth it is still nearly zero» if the atmosphere were isothermal at the same temperature as the surface then exactly the downwelling radiation absorbed by the surface would be equal to the radiation of th surface absorbed by the air (or rather by its trace gases) and both numbers would be (1 - 2E3 (t (nu)-RRB--RRB- pi B (nu, T) where t (nu) is the optical thickness, B the Planck function, nu the optical frequency and T the temperature; as the flow from the air absorbed by the surface is equal to the flow from the surface absorbed by the air, the radiative heat transfer is zero between surface and air.

In all of these simple models, we assume the atmosphere to have a volume as fixed as a bathtub, we assume that the atmosphere / ocean system is a closed system, we assume that the incoming radiation from the Sun is constant, we assume no turbulence, we assume no viscosity, we assume radiative equilibrium with no feedback lag, we take no account of water vapor flux assuming it to be constant, no change in albedo from changes in land use, glacier lengthening and shortening, no volcanic eruptions, no feedbacks from vegetation.

Although we focus on a hypothesized CR - cloud connection, we note that it is difficult to separate changes in the CR flux from accompanying variations in solar irradiance and the solar wind, for which numerous causal links to climate have also been proposed, including: the influence of UV spectral irradiance on stratospheric heating and dynamic stratosphere - troposphere links (Haigh 1996); UV irradiance and radiative damage to phytoplankton influencing the release of volatile precursor compounds which form sulphate aerosols over ocean environments (Kniveton et al. 2003); an amplification of total solar irradiance (TSI) variations by the addition of energy in cloud - free regions enhancing tropospheric circulation features (Meehl et al. 2008; Roy & Haigh 2010); numerous solar - related influences (including solar wind inputs) to the properties of the global electric circuit (GEC) and associated microphysical cloud changes (Tinsley 2008).

The radiative heat transfer physics I am using is standard from long before climate science borrowed the incorrect two - stream approximation from astrophysics and made the mistake, from meteorology, of assuming a pyrometer measures energy flux instead of a temperature signal.

The radiative forcing equations have been confirmed by field measurements showing the expected level of IR flux arising from the surface in an upward direction in CO2 - absorbable wavelengths.

Net UP IR in any wavelength interval from the Earth's surface in radiative and convective equilibrium with the atmosphere is the vector sum of UP and DOWN fluxes in the opposing emission spectra.

We only have to refrain from converting it to a radiative flux change.

Philipona et al. (2004) measured the changes and trends of radiative fluxes at the surface and their relation to greenhouse gas increases and temperature and humidity changes measured from 1995 to 2002 at eight stations of the Alpine Surface Radiation Budget (ASRB) network.