Sentences with phrase «radiative transfer equation for»

Not exact matches

While many basic aspects of physics can be included (conservation of mass, energy etc.), many need to be approximated for reasons of efficiency or resolutions (i.e. the equations of motion need estimates of sub-gridscale turbulent effects, radiative transfer codes approximate the line - by - line calculations using band averaging), and still others are only known empirically (the formula for how fast clouds turn to rain for instance).

(Even for a relatively simple example of a gray medium, calculating the equilibrium temperature profile within a homogeneous slab involves a singular Fredholm integral equation of the second kind as described by M. N. Ozisik in Radiative Transfer (1973).)

For idealized GCMs, we use the FMS dynamical core (that is, the basic numerical schemes FMS provides for the hydrostatic primitive equations), with various idealizations for the lower boundary conditions, for radiative transfer, and for moist or dry convectiFor idealized GCMs, we use the FMS dynamical core (that is, the basic numerical schemes FMS provides for the hydrostatic primitive equations), with various idealizations for the lower boundary conditions, for radiative transfer, and for moist or dry convectifor the hydrostatic primitive equations), with various idealizations for the lower boundary conditions, for radiative transfer, and for moist or dry convectifor the lower boundary conditions, for radiative transfer, and for moist or dry convectifor radiative transfer, and for moist or dry convectifor moist or dry convection.

is, in the circumstances, gravely damaging to him, since it suggests that he repudiates (for instance) such proven scientific results as the fundamental equation of radiative transfer.

At basic level, It falls out of the equations for radiative transfer if you increase a greenhouse gas.

For myself, I call into question not the «basic radiative transfer physics» but the completeness and accuracy of the atmospheric models: all of the equations are approximations, the response of clouds to CO2 increase and warming are not well known, yet AGW proponents act as though a slight increase in temp following a long increase in CO2 is a sure thing.

The direct radiative forcing calculation is based on an empiric al equation derived from well - established atmospheric radiative energy transfer models and serves as a first - order proxy for global warming impact.»

see fred «'' Jeff, the 1C value for a forcing of 3.7 W / m ^ 2 (the canonical value for doubled CO2 based on radiative transfer equations and spectroscopic data) is derived by differentiating the Stefan - Boltzmann equation that equates flux (F) to a constant (sigma) x the fourth power of temperature.

It's also the case that the results for the radiative transfer equations will have a certain amount of error using «band models» compared with the «line by line» (LBL) codes for all trace gases.

Well, the only way to work out the «expected» results — or what the theory predicts — is to solve the radiative transfer equations (RTE) for that vertical profile through the atmosphere.

Can you tell me what is wrong with the standard solution of the equations for radiative transfer in the atmosphere and how you know this and where you are planning to publish it?

To compute what happens quantitatively, one must solve the equations for radiative transfer absorption - line by absorption - line through the atmosphere.

With sufficient warming, the same radiative transfer equations show that upward IR will rise enough for sufficient quantities to escape to space, albeit at a higher altitude than before, warmed sufficiently so that its IR emissivity allows OLR to balance incoming absorbed radiation.

Jeff, the 1C value for a forcing of 3.7 W / m ^ 2 (the canonical value for doubled CO2 based on radiative transfer equations and spectroscopic data) is derived by differentiating the Stefan - Boltzmann equation that equates flux (F) to a constant (sigma) x the fourth power of temperature.