Sentences with phrase «radiative heat flux»

GHGs direct some of the upward radiative heat flux back down towards the surface, which means that when GHG concentrations are increased other heat fluxs (e.g. convection) must increase to compensate.

For that, it's assumed that the CO2 would be added very rapidly and nothing else would have time to adjust except the radiative heat flux, which reacts always immediately.

Radiative heat flux comprises all radiative fluxes in and out of the atmospheric column («Radiative»).

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.

However, the colder ocean surface reduces upward radiative, sensible and latent heat fluxes, thus causing a large (∼ 50 W m − 2) increase in energy into the North Atlantic and a substantial but smaller flux into the Southern Ocean (Fig. 8c).

A few comments: First, the exact relationship between a glacier and temperature is a bit more complex than implied above, and also depends on the glacier geometry and aspect (which direction it is facing), and on radiative as well as sensible heat fluxes.

(The difference between radiative and sensible heat fluxes may be thought of as the difference between the ambient temperature is, and how intense the sun is.

Changes in the planetary and tropical TOA radiative fluxes are consistent with independent global ocean heat - storage data, and are expected to be dominated by changes in cloud radiative forcing.

What the ice actually does in a particular year depends upon the «forcings» (to misapply a term, perhaps) actually occurring — net ocean heat fluxes, net radiative fluxes, winds and currents (especially, but not exclusively, as they determine ice export to the North Atlantic.)

The radiative forcing of CO2 is a heat flux 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.

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.

(Within a typical atmosphere, as on Earth, heat transport by conduction and molecular mass diffusion are relatively insignificant for bulk transport (there is some role in smaller - scale processes involving particles in the air), except when the net radiative flux and convective flux are very very small (not a condition generally found on Earth).

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.

«Significant increasing trends in DSR [DownwardSurface Radiation] and net DSR fluxes were found, equal to 4.1 and 3.7 Wm ⁻², respectively, over the 1984 - 2000 period (equivalent to 2.4 and 2.2 Wm ⁻² per decade), indicating an increasing surface solar radiative heating.

The ratio ɛ = H / L between vertical extent H of the lower troposphere and the horizontal scale L of the region of precipitation (Fig. 1) enters because of the balance of the horizontal advective heat transport and the vertical fluxes of net radiative influx R and precipitation P.

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

The resultant heating balances the negative net radiative flux as long as it is above a threshold R C, below which no conventional monsoon exists.

During the monsoon season, latent heat release dominates the atmospheric heat content, whereas net radiative fluxes are relatively constant throughout the year, reflecting the stabilizing long - wave radiative feedback.

The working group activities are motivated by several identified deficiencies in estimates of high latitude surface fluxes (e.g., sensible and latent heat, radiative fluxes, stress, and gas fluxes).

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

It changes because of greenhouse gases, cloud and ice cover changes, land clearing, volcanoes, dust and soot in the atmosphere — all of the physical changes that result in a change in the radiative flux leaving the planet either as IR (heat) emissions or as reflected sunlight.

If the corrected 2005 Levitus dataset ocean heat flux data and the GISS change in radiative forcings estimates were used, (Q — F) in the Gregory 02 equation (3) would be centred on 0.68 Wm - 2 instead of on 0.20 Wm - 2.

In air, the radiative heat transfer flux for 0.9 emissivity steel only exceeds natural convection at c. 100 deg C. For aluminium it's about 300 deg C. Check any of the standard engineering texts, e.g. McAdam «Heat Transfer» to confirm (it's in the tables of combined heat transfer coefficienheat transfer flux for 0.9 emissivity steel only exceeds natural convection at c. 100 deg C. For aluminium it's about 300 deg C. Check any of the standard engineering texts, e.g. McAdam «Heat Transfer» to confirm (it's in the tables of combined heat transfer coefficienHeat Transfer» to confirm (it's in the tables of combined heat transfer coefficienheat transfer coefficients).

This flux is roughly compensated by the sum of the sensible heat, latent heat, and * net * upwelling radiative fluxes.

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.

What really happens is that ocean heat follows TOA radiant flux and the recent warming was mostly the cloud radiative effect.

The numerical values of the temperatures themselves do not matter here; it is the value of the radiative flux densities at these temperatures that matter for heat transfer.

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.

«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.

This is achieved through the study of three independent records, the net heat flux into the oceans over 5 decades, the sea - level change rate based on tide gauge records over the 20th century, and the sea - surface temperature variations... We find that the total radiative forcing associated with solar cycles variations is about 5 to 7 times larger than just those associated with the TSI variations, thus implying the necessary existence of an amplification mechanism, although without pointing to which one.

F., M. Köhler, J. D. Farrara and C. R. Mechoso, 2002: The impact of stratocumulus cloud radiative properties on surface heat fluxes simulated with a general circulation model.

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.

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.

So it is entirely plausible that the radiative flux could stagnate while the convective heat flux changes.

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).

Well - known examples of such cases are the direct radiative forcing of black carbon (BC) and other absorbing aerosols and the changes in latent and sensible heat fluxes due to land - use modifications.

These processes include arctic clouds and their radiative impacts, sea - ice albedo changes, surface energy fluxes, vertical momentum transfer, and ocean vertical heat transport.

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.

This is twice the 2001 heat flux, comparable to the annual shortwave radiative flux into the Chukchi Sea, and enough to melt 1 / 3rd of the 2007 seasonal Arctic sea - ice loss.

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.

@Pierre - Normand It's special because there is no convective or latent heat transport at all within it and so radiative fluxes through the tropopause must exactly match the TOA flux after the troposphere has adjusted to the instantaneous forcing.

It's special because there is no convective or latent heat transport at all within it and so radiative fluxes through the tropopause must exactly match the TOA flux after the troposphere has adjusted to the instantaneous forcing.

[1] Total absorbed radiation (TAR), the sum of SNR [shortwave net radiation] and LDR [longwave downward radiation], represents the total radiative energy available to maintain the Earth's surface temperature and to sustain the turbulent (sensible and latent) heat fluxes in the atmosphere.

Net flux is a constant, by definition of radiative equilibrium there is zero heating of every layer.

In other words, the reduced radiative energy flux must be compensated through increased temperatures or altered latent / sensible heat fluxes.

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.

SoD, this is a long post so I'll finish with this thought: why is radiative flux equated with heat transfer as the backradiation appears to be?