Sentences with phrase «surface radiative energy»

Characterizing the interactions of clouds and aerosols with the surface radiative energy budget requires both solar (broadband shortwave) and terrestrial infrared (broadband longwave) radiation observations.

Karlsson (2017), An intercomparison and validation of satellite - based surface radiative energy flux estimates over the Arctic, J. Geophys.

A study discovered weaknesses in the accuracy of satellite - based data sets, which can be improved to obtain more accurate information about the surface radiative energy budget in the region.

New information on the accuracy of satellite data measuring the Arctic surface radiative energy budget

Surface radiative energy budget plays an important role in the Arctic, which is covered by snow and ice: when the balance is positive, more solar radiation from the Sun and the Earth's atmosphere arrives on the Earth's surface than is emitted from it.

A study discovered weaknesses in the accuracy of satellite - based data sets, which can be improved to obtain more accurate information about the surface radiative energy budget in the region.

Not exact matches

An object too small to be an ordinary star because it can not produce enough energy by fusion in its core to compensate for the radiative energy it loses from its surface.

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).

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.

The surface temperature change is proportional to the sensitivity and radiative forcing (in W m - 2), regardless of the source of the energy imbalance.

«We use a massive ensemble of the Bern2.5 D climate model of intermediate complexity, driven by bottom - up estimates of historic radiative forcing F, and constrained by a set of observations of the surface warming T since 1850 and heat uptake Q since the 1950s... Between 1850 and 2010, the climate system accumulated a total net forcing energy of 140 x 1022 J with a 5 - 95 % uncertainty range of 95 - 197 x 1022 J, corresponding to an average net radiative forcing of roughly 0.54 (0.36 - 0.76) Wm - 2.»

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.

Referring back to 24 November 2005, raypierre describes the overall assumption of the radiative process analysis that concludes with a surface temperature output, saying that the radiating temperature «has to stay the same, since the planet still has to get rid of the same amount of energy absorbed from incident sunlight.»

Concluding: not only radiative process contribute to the transfer of energy from the surface to outer space.

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.

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.

This simple radiative example (convective transport is not being allowed) shows that any finite surface temperature Ts can be supported in radiative equilibrium with any arbitrarily cold «upper atmosphere» temperature Tt, by prescribing the appropriate LW opacity TAU for the atmospheric layer, with the energy required to maintain a fixed Ts adjusted accordingly.

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 %.

Radiative physics certainly applies at the surface, but no one (Andy, myself, or anyone else) said that radiation is the only component of the surface energy budget.

Increasing the concentration of radiative gases in the atmosphere increases the speed of circulation in the Hadley, Ferrel and Polar convective cells, thereby increasing the strength of mechanical energy transport away from the surface and lower atmosphere.

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

The energy flow diagrams of Trenberth et al and Stephens et al show 3 mechanisms by which a warming Earth surface can warm the troposphere and restore radiative balance: it is not reasonable to assert a priori that two of them can't matter in calculating the global mean temperature after a doubling of CO2 concentration, when even a little study shows that all of them will be affected.

To obtain realistic simulations, it was found necessary to include additional energy sources and sinks: in particular, energy exchanges with the surface and moist atmospheric processes with the attendant latent heat release and radiative heat inputs.

RealOldOne2 states that the greenhouse effect is real — he states that the increase radiative emission from GHGs results in the surface emitting less energy than it would if it were radiating straight to space as a result of sentient molecules.

MattStat, «The energy flow diagrams of Trenberth et al and Stephens et al show 3 mechanisms by which a warming Earth surface can warm the troposphere and restore radiative balance:»

3) Under the assumption of radiative equilibrium, it can be shown that the surface temperature of a planet would slightly and non linearily increase with the concentration of IR active gases (primarily H2O) if and only if radiation was the only mean for energy transfer.

I do happen to understand radiative energy transfer at a reasonable level — at least enough to understand than when the surface loses energy via radiation, its temperature drops.

where is the vertically integrated energy flux in the atmosphere, is the net radiative energy input to an atmospheric column (the difference between absorbed shortwave radiation and emitted longwave radiation), and is the oceanic energy uptake at the surface.

In summary, the LES framework with closed surface energy balance constrains the change in surface fluxes and especially LHF to be consistent with the radiative forcing, which is important for obtaining realizable MBL and low - cloud responses to warming.

So, explain how CO2 is able to re-radiate absorbed energy toward the surface, when its collisional decay rate in the troposphere is more than 10x faster than its radiative decay.

Their observed height and mixing ability is a result of radiative characteristics supplementing the energy they acquire from the surface and that additional energy being diffused through the whole atmosphere by collisional activity.

The radiative absorption capability of CO2 allows atmospheric molecules to reach a higher temperature than that imparted to them by energy at the surface so they rise to a higher location than would be predicted from their weight and their individual gas constants.

Several runs with the model under future emissions scenarios where the radiative imbalance is known exactly and a distinct energy imbalance at TOA was occurring nonetheless featured several stases in surface temperatures for more than a decade.

Your hypothesis assumes that increased absorption of energy in the troposphere will be transmitted to the surface by convection, since radiative transfer doesn't change if the temperature remains constant, and the radiative imbalance at the TOA wouldn't change.

«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.»

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.

The energy balance at the glacier surface shows that the greatest energy available to melt ice comes from the radiative balance.

Radiative transfer models use fundamental physical equations and observations to translate this increased downward radiation into a radiative forcing, which effectively tells us how much increased energy is reaching the Earth'sRadiative transfer models use fundamental physical equations and observations to translate this increased downward radiation into a radiative forcing, which effectively tells us how much increased energy is reaching the Earth'sradiative forcing, which effectively tells us how much increased energy is reaching the Earth's surface.

The exact balance of the energy transferred from the surface via radiative and convective processes seems not to be accurately known (as far as I have read to date), but non-radiative processes dominate.

Studies have shown that these radiative transfer models match up with the observed increase in energy reaching the Earth's surface with very good accuracy (Puckrin 2004).

ii) The real question is whether changes in radiative characteristics alone can result in energy being transferred from the radiative SDL to the mechanical AAL so as to add to the energy in that latterLoop and thereby significantly increase the temperature of atmosphere and surface by in turn increasing the time delay in the transmission of energy through the system.

The Sun and the Earth's core are the dominate energy inputs, the Earth's surface Energy radiative rate is affect by the atmosphere's R energy inputs, the Earth's surface Energy radiative rate is affect by the atmosphere's R Energy radiative rate is affect by the atmosphere's R value.

So it seems to me that the simple way of communicating a complex problem has led to several fallacies becoming fixed in the discussions of the real problem; (1) the Earth is a black body, (2) with no materials either surrounding the systems or in the systems, (3) in radiative energy transport equilibrium, (4) response is chaotic solely based on extremely rough appeal to temporal - based chaotic response, (5) but at the same time exhibits trends, (6) but at the same time averages of chaotic response are not chaotic, (7) the mathematical model is a boundary value problem yet it is solved in the time domain, (8) absolutely all that matters is the incoming radiative energy at the TOA and the outgoing radiative energy at the Earth's surface, (9) all the physical phenomena and processes that are occurring between the TOA and the surface along with all the materials within the subsystems can be ignored, (10) including all other activities of human kind save for our contributions of CO2 to the atmosphere, (11) neglecting to mention that if these were true there would be no problem yet we continue to expend time and money working on the problem.

There is a small effect from the radiative properties of the «GHG's», but they simply act as a sort of hybrid thermal / optical delay line which delays the flow of any single photon through the Sun / Earth / Atmosphere / Universe system by causing it to make multiple «bounces» through the system: surface / GHG / surface / GHG / escape to the energy free void of space.

RE: sky says: (August 10, 2010 at 4:54 pm) «From the macro perspective of geophysics, that question is largely mooted by the fact that radiative transfer does not operate as the sole means of thermal energy transfer from surface to space.»

«Because the solar - thermal energy balance of Earth [at the top of the atmosphere (TOA)-RSB- is maintained by radiative processes only, and because all the global net advective energy transports must equal zero, it follows that the global average surface temperature must be determined in full by the radiative fluxes arising from the patterns of temperature and absorption of radiation.»

«We use a massive ensemble of the Bern2.5 D climate model of intermediate complexity, driven by bottom - up estimates of historic radiative forcing F, and constrained by a set of observations of the surface warming T since 1850 and heat uptake Q since the 1950s... Between 1850 and 2010, the climate system accumulated a total net forcing energy of 140 x 1022 J with a 5 - 95 % uncertainty range of 95 - 197 x 1022 J, corresponding to an average net radiative forcing of roughly 0.54 (0.36 - 0.76) Wm - 2.»

Instead of a paradigm that leads people to think that any impedance to OLR necessarily must raise surface temperatures to maintain TOA radiative balance, Earth has a parallel non-radiative path of thermal energy flow, with the endothermic process of evaporation playing a central role.

Greenhouse gases «trap» radiative energy because they absorbed IR radiation from the Earth's surface which then continually «bounces up and down».

The surface temperature response, T, to a given change in atmospheric CO2 is calculated from an energy balance equation for the surface, with heat removed either by a radiative damping term or by diffusion into the deep ocean.