Sentences with phrase «radiative heating only»

CO2 radiative heating only contributed a trivial amount of warming and has had no impact on expanding Antarctic Ice.

CO2 radiative heating only contributed a trivial amount of warming [to the Arctic] and has had no impact on expanding Antarctic Ice.

Not exact matches

If the atmosphere consisted of Oxygen / Nitrogen only, its thermal conductivity would be very low, solar heating would be much the same, and the insulation effect (and the gravitational lapse rate) would produce a substantial temperature differential from the surface to the top of the atmosphere without any radiative absorption.

Therefore, for the Earth climate system, radiation is the ONLY heat loss mechanism, and therefore radiative absorption is key.

As far as I know, if the only physical mechanism under consideration is the radiative cooling of the planet's surface (which was heated by shortwave solar radiation and reradiated at longer wavelengths in the infrared) via radiative transport, additional gas of any kind can only result in a higher equilibrium temperature.

A compelling argument for the positive longwave response is a leading alternate to Lindzen's IRIS although it receives less attention, and is known as the FAT hypothesis (from Dennis Hartmann) and arises from the fundamental physics of convection only heating the atmosphere where radiative cooling is efficient, and thus the temperature at the top of convective cloudiness should be near constant as it becomes warmer.

Don't the oceans have to absorb heat not only in the surface / mid layers but right down to the bottom for radiative heat balance to occur?

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

It's counter-intuitive to hypothesize that, say for example only, AST going quite flat then dropping for a while indicates «global warming» increasing simultaneous with the AST dropping (oceans take heat suddenly in my example, AST drops, TOA radiative imbalance increases).

Introduction of nondimensional variables w ≡ Wρ / β and p = P / (q Oβ) results in the nondimensional equation which depends on two parameters only: The dimensionless net radiative influx r ≡ R · ɛαρ2 / (C pβ2) and a measure for the relative role of latent and advective heat transport Large l corresponds to a strong influence of moisture advection (scaling as Lq Oβp) on the continental heat budget compared with heat advection by large - scale and synoptic processes (scaling as C pβ2 w 2 / (αɛρ2)-RRB-.

So the argument is made that chaos only provides «noise», while the dominant trends are due to heat and radiative balance.

Climastrologists assumed the surface of our planet to be a near blackbody that could only heat to 255K for an average of 240 w / m2 of solar radiation if there were no radiative atmosphere.

The only reasonable conclusion - call it a null hypothesis - is that heat is no longer accumulating in the climate system and there is no longer a radiative imbalance caused by anthropogenic forcing.

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!!!

The climate response depends not only upon the TOA forcing, but its difference with respect to the surface value, which represents radiative heating within the atmosphere.

«The dual wave and particle nature of radiation is recognised, but it is considered more appropriate, and indeed necessary, for an understanding of radiative heat transfer to consider the frequencies and intensities associated with the wave nature of radiation, for only then can the one - way transfer of heat be described and quantified in a meaningful manner.»

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).

The dynamics of the system are governed by the lapse rate which is «anchored» to the ground and whose variations are dependent not only on convection, latent heat changes and conduction but also radiative transfer.

On the moon the only mechanism for heat loss is radiative to space and conductive from the interior to the surface.

Irrespective of what one thinks about aerosol forcing, it would be hard to argue that the rate of net forcing increase and / or over-all radiative imbalance has actually dropped markedly in recent years, so any change in net heat uptake can only be reasonably attributed to a bit of natural variability or observational uncertainty.

There is some conduction at the surface from the atmosphere, and there is some radiative heating at, and just below the surface, but that heat will only transfer through the water itself through convection.

Because the only way for the earth to cool is by radiative output into space, and because of the present heat content, we have stored energy in the billions of years behind us.

There have been many «heated» discussions on various blogs as to the hypothetical structure of the atmosphere composed of no greenhouse gases, only non radiative gases.

It is not «conduction» but exchange of radiation; if you keep your hands parallel at a distance of some cm the right hand does not (radiatively) «warm» the left hand or vice versa albeit at 33 °C skin temperature they exchange some hundreds of W / m ² (about 500 W / m ²) The solar radiation reaching the surface (for 71 % of the surface, the oceans) is lost by evaporation (or evapotranspiration of the vegetation), plus some convection (20 W / ²) and some radiation reaching the cosmos directly through the window 8µm to 12 µm (about 20 W / m ² «global» average); only the radiative heat flow surface to air (absorbed by the air) is negligible (plus or minus); the non radiative (latent heat, sensible heat) are transferred for surface to air and compensate for a part of the heat lost to the cosmos by the upper layer of the water vapour displayed on figure 6 - C.

Therefore the evaporation increases only through warming and that means that in can never fully compensate the additional radiative heating.

Moreover, since gas molecules don't absorb IR across the spectrum but only on molecular lines, cutting off the radiative heat flow would not be nearly as effective as simply silvering the walls and pulling a vacuum in the void between the walls.

First, radiative heat transfer will only occur with the approximately 2 % of the gaseous molecules that are IR active.

Is this point only about the radiative characteristics of the H2O vapour, and the assumption that relative and / or specific humidity should rise thanks to CO2 - induced increased evaporation, which in turn would increase downwelling heat radiation — or just the part that slightly hotter surface (due to CO2) also emits more heat to be trapped by the vater vapour?

Fred Souder says (February 21, 2011 at 3:02 pm):» Again, radiative heat transfer ONLY occurs in the direction from a hot source to a cold source.»

Radiative forcing only accounts for about 1/3 of ocean heat loss — when radiative heat loss is reduced the ocean simply loses more heat the way it loses the majority of its heatRadiative forcing only accounts for about 1/3 of ocean heat loss — when radiative heat loss is reduced the ocean simply loses more heat the way it loses the majority of its heatradiative heat loss is reduced the ocean simply loses more heat the way it loses the majority of its heat already.

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.

... I now know I'm not the only one to have noticed that radiative models are missing a large piece of the puzzle [Latent Heat].

Therefore it is only the net energy flows which need be considered when estimating the radiative heat transfers in the diagram.

According to Lindzen, if there were only radiative transfer of heat, that 323w / m2 of backradiation would create a greenhouse effect of 77C instead of 15C [288K]; the greenhouse effect is only working at less than 25 % of its potential.

We assume that the atmosphere is in radiative equilibrium — that is, convection does not exist and so only radiation moves heat around.

Radiative heat transfer is not the only mechanism, and some of what is observed today is not explained: on another thread is a discussion of clouds.

Recall that Teh Modulz are not only tuned to GMST, but to things like cloud, snow and ice coverage as well as ocean heat content — all of which have an impact on radiative balance and hence energy budget of the system, not to mention energy redistribution internally.

Or it may be that as an instantaneous solution to radiative transfer, HITRAN is ok, but to the question of non-instantaneous energy transfer from the surface to the TOA which necessarily includes convection and transfer of energy by latent heat of vaporisation and more... then it only tells part of the story.