Sentences with phrase «radiative losses»

(Also, with respect to the T ^ 4 issue, the lower gradients results in smaller radiative losses than a planet with large gradients — all things being equal.

Shear, stable stratification, and radiative losses.

Then the temperature rise will by 0.5 C, and 1 W / m2 of forcing will be exactly counterbalanced by 1 W / m2 of extra radiative losses, and no net heat is then being added to the system.

Radiative losses alone from open ocean at 32 F is more than twice this value, and evaporative losses would remove additional heat from the ocean surface to the tropopause where it can radiate to space.

Silvering the walls reduces radiative losses

Worse, every rise in atmospheric temperature is taken by AGW «science» to indicate warming, when in many cases, it merely is a sign that additional heat is exposed to the 4 degree Kelvin temperature of outer space, resulting in higher radiative losses.

Conductive and external radiative losses will reduce the above temperature considerably.

«Once we optimize some of the main parameters of this system to minimize ohmic and radiative losses, we can start transitioning this research from the theoretical stage to a commercially relevant product,» Kanté said.

The cold sink is the upper troposhere (by radiative loss to space).

It is important to note that the radiative loss from greenhouse gases is ONLY at frequencies that can be absorbed by near - by other near by greenhouse gases * and in all directions.

Greenhouse gases absorb thermal radiation from the surface and slow radiative loss to space.

This heat, energy if you like, will be lost to outer space, adding to the radiative loss, and exceeding it by factors.

al) suggest radiative loss to space, but they also include references relating to warming bottom water, deepening tropical gyre warm bowls, and increased mass loss from the Antarctic and Geenland ice sheets.

While the authors found decreases in radiation loss with short - term temperature increases, I find that the CMIP models exhibit an INCREASE in radiative loss with short term warming.

Even though some of the CMIP models produce a lot of global warming, all of them are still stable in this regard, with net increases in lost radiation with warming (NOTE: If analyzing the transient CMIP runs where CO2 is increased over long periods of time, one must first remove that radiative forcing in order to see the increase in radiative loss).

Conversely a La Nina reduces the radiative loss of energy of the ocean, increasing OHC relative to neutral periods.

As cloud cover significantly reduces night cooling, I guess that radiative loss is significant.

An aside: one of the reasons that clouds modulate temperature so effectively is not just the albedo increase which bounces downwelling short wave radiation back into space, but because they radiate IR back to the surface thus reducing the net rate of thermal radiative loss.»

An aside: one of the reasons that clouds modulate temperature so effectively is not just the albedo increase which bounces dowelling short wave radiation back into space, but because they radiate IR back to the surface thus reducing the net rate of thermal radiative loss.

Pat wrote: «But TOA radiative loss can just as easily be through the latent heat of water vapor condensation in the upper atmosphere.

The atmoshpere does have a certain heat retaining «capacity» which is entirely dependent on radiative loss to outer space.

Not exact matches

Respective roles of direct GHG radiative forcing and induced Arctic sea ice loss on the Northern Hemisphere atmospheric circulation.

(hint: because vacuum insulates perfectly for everything except radiative heat loss)

Since OHC uptake efficiency associated with surface warming is low compared with the rate of radiative restoring (increase in energy loss to space as specified by the climate feedback parameter), an important internal contribution must lead to a loss rather than a gain of ocean heat; thus the observation of OHC increase requires a dominant role for external forcing.

Earth's energy balance In response to a positive radiative forcing F (see Appendix A), such as characterizes the present - day anthropogenic perturbation (Forsteret al., 2007), the planet must increase its net energy loss to space in order to re-establish energy balance (with net energy loss being the difference between the outgoing long - wave (LW) radiation and net incoming shortwave (SW) radiation at the top - of - atmosphere (TOA)-RRB-.

Of course, it also reduces radiative heat losses too.

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

This, and the radiative emission rate allows you to calculate the radiative heat loss from a packet of atmosphere.

Hence, planets tend to gain or lose energy to space in the form of photons, and we often refer to the energy loss as «radiative heat loss».

A fundamental law of physics, known as the Planck's law, says that radiative heat loss from any object depends on its temperature.

It should not be so hard to accept that doubling the concentration of a gas that interacts with earth's radiative output (which is orders of magnitude larger than any other energy loss), over time and with feedbacks included, can change change the surface temperature by about 1 %.

Likewise, I know that the average radiative balance of the earth has been mathematically determined but I do not think that we are measuring actual radiative gains and losses over the entire spectrum well enough as yet.

That's another blue on blue with regard to RealOldOne2's claims that changes in cloud are only a positive forcing with zero regard to the effect on radiative IR loss.

The greater height of GHGs would therefore facilitate extra radiative energy loss to space.

Similarly, the cross-equatorial energy flux (~ -0.2 PW) represents a small residual imbalance between the two hemispheres which each have, for example, shortwave radiative energy gains and longwave radiative energy losses of tens of PW.

A 1 % decrease in cloud cover has a slightly higher radiative effect as all the observed loss of Arctic sea ice to date has had.

(Ramanathan and Inamdar 1989) So a 1 % decrease in cloud cover has a slightly higher radiative effect as all the observed loss of Arctic sea ice to date has had.

But I don't think it's all about radiative heat loss.

I'm saying that a theory which attempts to refute net radiative heat loss can not explain thermoses and atmospheres.

Now, getting to point: «I'm saying that a theory which attempts to refute net radiative heat loss can not explain thermoses and atmospheres.»

I know Greenhouse Theory is suppose to be entirely about radiative heat loss.

Results show that the globally and annually averaged radiative forcing caused by the observed loss of sea ice in the Arctic between 1979 and 2007 is approximately 0.1 W m − 2; a complete removal of Arctic sea ice results in a forcing of about 0.7 W m − 2, while a more realistic ice - free - summer scenario (no ice for one month, decreased ice at all other times of the year) results in a forcing of about 0.3 W m − 2, similar to present - day anthropogenic forcing caused by halocarbons.

You can easily prove this coupled concept with a beach windbreak: erect it and the sand temperature rises to keep the sum of convective and radiative heat loss equal to the SW thermalisation; drop the windbreak and sand temperature falls as convection increases.

The largest uncertainty in the future radiative forcing caused by sea - ice loss is related to how clouds in the Arctic will change.

With a dominant internal component having the structure of the observed warming, and with radiative restoring strong enough to keep the forced component small, how can one keep the very strong radiative restoring from producing heat loss from the oceans totally inconsistent with any measures of changes in oceanic heat content?

The strength of the radiative heat loss to space per unit warming of global mean surface temperature is a key quantity of interest, as usual.

It is important that this second term is more or less inversely proportional to; a bigger (smaller climate sensitivity) is required to make room for the internal contribution, resulting in stronger radiative restoring of this internal component and greater heat loss.

''... how can one keep the very strong radiative restoring from producing heat loss from the oceans totally inconsistent with any measures of changes in oceanic heat content?»

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

IF co2 were retaining heat would not the satellites record a drop in escaping heat from the Earth, last time I checked there was no appreciable change in radiative heat loss from the Earth