Sentences with phrase «surface radiative cooling»

And witnessed TRUE radiative cooling of the car's hood, roof, until they eventually «dew up»... the reason why FOG FORMS (surface radiative cooling).

Not exact matches

Results show that the intrusion of dust from the Sahara Desert caused radiative cooling of Earth's surface.

During this event, the aerosols stayed close to the surface due to the presence of a anticyclone hovering over the study region at sea - level, «reducing the amount of shortwave irradiance reaching the surface and causing greater radiative cooling,» states Obregón, who likens the effects of desert dust with those resulting from certain forest fires or episodes of high pollution.

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.

ENSO events, for example, can warm or cool ocean surface temperatures through exchange of heat between the surface and the reservoir stored beneath the oceanic mixed layer, and by changing the distribution and extent of cloud cover (which influences the radiative balance in the lower atmosphere).

ENSO events, for example, can warm or cool ocean surface temperatures through exchange of heat between the surface and the reservoir stored beneath the oceanic mixed layer, and by changing the distribution and extent of cloud cover (which influences the radiative balance in the lower atmosphere).

The troposphere is currently cooling radiatively at about 2K / day, and adding CO2 to the atmosphere generally increases the radiative cooling (primarily through increases in water vapor, though how these details play out also depend on the details of the surface budget).

In the case of Concentrated Solar Power that uses heliostats, one ought to be able to boost night time cooling by providing a low brightness temperature surface (the mirrors) to enhance radiative cooling, though the convective cooling will still dominate.

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..

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.

Even parabolic troughs might run radiative cooling through pipes placed halfway between the collector vacuum pipes and the mirror surface since these pipes would see cool portions of the sky not occupied by the Sun.

... interestingly in the grey gas case with no solar heating of the stratosphere, increasing the optical thickness of the atmosphere would result in an initial cooling of and in the vicinity of the skin layer (reduced OLR), and an initial radiative warming of the air just above the surface (increased backradiation)-- of course, the first of those dissappears at full equilibrium.

The argument isn't actually as firm a constraint as generally believed, since the infrared radiative cooling of the atmosphere is affected by the temperature difference between air and the underlying surface, which can adjust to accommodate any amount of evaporation Nature wants to dump into the atmosphere (as shown in Pierrehumbert 1999 («Subtropical water vapor...» available here)-RRB-.

In full equilibrium, at any given level, there may be some net radiative heating at some frequencies compensated by some net radiative cooling at other frequencies, with convection balancing the full spectrum radiative cooling of the troposphere and heating of the surface.

This is plainly not true, as can be easily seen by computing the net radiative cooling in a radiative - convective model with a consistent surface energy budget.

In the pure radiative equilibrium, you can get it into a range where the grey model gives you surface warming and stratospheric cooling (that's in one of the problems), but you have to work at it a bit, and also remember to plot things in pressure coord, not optical depth coordinates.

The lapse rate within the troposphere is largely determined by convection, which redistributes any changes in radiative heating or cooling within the troposphere + surface so that all levels tend to shift temperature similarly (with some regional / latitudinal, diurnal, and seasonal exceptions, and some exceptions for various transient weather events).

Re my 441 — competing bands — To clarify, the absorption of each band adds to a warming effect of the surface + troposphere; given those temperatures, there are different equilibrium profiles of the stratosphere (and different radiative heating and cooling rates in the troposphere, etc.) for different amounts of absorption at different wavelengths; the bands with absorption «pull» on the temperature profile toward their equilibria; disequilibrium at individual bands is balanced over the whole spectrum (with zero net LW cooling, or net LW cooling that balances convective and solar heating).

The very pretty thermographs prove that the sensor is not affected by the local walls — sensor colour is cool -(although I am certain Mr. Watts did not normalise the radiative properties of the sensor and surface — wrecking the accuracy of this reading — e.g. a glossy surface can reflect the surrounding temperature and not the surface temp of the unit).

The very pretty thermographs prove that the sensor is not affectedby the local walls — sensor colour is cool -(although I am certain Mr. Watts did not normalise the radiative properties of the sensor and surface — wrecking the accuracy of this reading — e.g. a glossy surface can reflect the surrounding temperature and not the surface temp of the unit).

Knowing the change in the non-radiative cooling of the Earth surface is as important as knowing the change in the radiative cooling, for computing the climate response to increased DWLWIR.

It's because both land and ocean surfaces are heated by shortwave solar radiation and where aerosols reflect SWR equally well over land or water and where greenhouse gases work by retarding the rate of radiative cooling which is not equal over land and water.

The water vapor cooled the Earth, the snow cooled the atmosphere with resulting increase in surface albedo which does reflect radiative heat, meaning the Earth gets less warm, not colder because of it.

Finally, you mention water vapour as a GHG... but water vapour is the main cooling component in the atmosphere, transporting heat from the surface to the radiative layer, so not really a true GHG.

Initially, shallow circulations driven by differential radiative cooling induce a self - aggregation of the convection into a single band, as has become familiar from simulations over idealized sea surfaces.

It clearly states that (a) emission of energy by radiation is accompanied with cooling of the surface (if no compensating changes prevent it), and (b) the tendency to a radiative equilibrium means that the emitter with the higher surface temperature will loose energy due to a negative net radiation balance until this net radiation balance becomes zero.

Consider this: The surface is cooled predominantly by non-radiative heat transfer, while on the other hand the atmosphere is cooled exclusively by radiative transfer to space.

The surface is cooled predominantly by non-radiative heat transfer, while on the other hand the atmosphere is cooled exclusively by radiative transfer to space.

The IPCC most certainly also claims water vapour warms, doing most of «33 degrees» of warming, whereas, in fact, it cools the surface by reducing the temperature gradient whilst still keeping radiative balance with the Sun.

This cooling to the surface can actually be a pretty large source of cooling.To illustrate how important this is, the authors put this really informative table from some idealized radiative calculations.

Hard data trends in radiative flux — trends that are internally consistent, consistent across platforms and consistent with surface observations of cloud in the Pacific — show strong warming in the SW and cooling in UV in the period in question.

The more «greenhouse» or IR - active gases in the stratosphere up to the thermosphere / edge of space, the more radiative surface area is available for radiative COOLING to space.

The temperature did not change, so the surface temperature - dependent responses of atmospheric radiative cooling also did not change.

Here we show that accounting for recent cooling in the eastern equatorial Pacific reconciles climate simulations and observations.We present a novel method of uncovering mechanisms for global temperature change by prescribing, in addition to radiative forcing, the observed history of sea surface temperature over the central to eastern tropical Pacific in a climate model.

You write: «If internal variability (such a a cool PDO phase) reduces the rate of increase of surface temperature, while the e [x] ternal forcing still is increasing, this means the radiative imbalance is impeded from being cancelled by surface warming.»

The presence of BC resulted in positive radiative forcing in the atmosphere leading to warming effect (+ 2.1 W / m2) whereas cooling was observed at the top of the atmosphere (− 0.4 W / m2) and at surface (− 2.5 W / m2).

If internal variability (such a a cool PDO phase) reduces the rate of increase of surface temperature, while the eternal forcing still is increasing, this means the radiative imbalance is impeded from being cancelled by surface warming.

I'm always aware that evaporative and convective cooling near the surface is contributing to the heating of the atmosphere; but do tend to push it aside, to concentrate on what the purely EM radiative effects are.

The atmospheric heating and cooling rates are then passed back to the atmosphere structure module that calculates how much the surface and atmospheric temperatures would change during the 30 - minute times step given the radiative heating and cooling rates.

The DALR is established in Earth's atmosphere by vertically moving macroscopic parcels of air driven by thermal convection between volumes and surfaces at different temperatures, temperature gradients maintained by diurnal solar forcing and continual radiative cooling.

The role of radiative gases in atmospheric cooling and tropospheric convective circulation far out weighs their role is slowing the cooling of the land surface.

Can radiative gases emit IR to the surface (land only) and slow it's cooling rate?

Konrad: It has long been understood that convection cools the surface... and that adding convection to a purely radiative model of the atmosphere reduces the greenhouse effect.

If look look back over my comments on this thread, you will note that I repeatedly state that radiative gases can slow the cooling of land surface and by intercepting surface IR they can heat gases in the lower troposphere.

Without radiative cooling at altitude, tropospheric temperatures above the near surface layer would rise to near surface Tmax.

Land surface Tav may be lower under a non radiative atmosphere, but this does not translate to a cooler atmosphere.

No, without radiative cooling (but assuming the same albedo for simplicity), the temperature of the Earth's surface would not be average 288 K but rather only ~ 255 K (really the average of the square of the temperature over the surface).

Without radiative gases, the surface would be ~ 255 K — which is much cooler than the surface or lower atmosphere with radiative gases.

Konrad says: April 18, 2013 at 8:04 pm Radiative cooling at altitude is critical for continued convective circulation... Energy loss at altitude is just as important for convective circulation as energy input near the surface.

Experiment 5 shows why greater radiative cooling of the night land surface will not result in significantly greater conductive cooling of an atmosphere in which the gases are free to move.