Sentences with phrase «upward heat flux»

The heat lost by each warm anomaly as it passes eastwards must in part be lost into the bulk of the Atlantic water mass below, but there is good evidence also of significant upward heat flux during transit along the slope: despite microstructure observations that suggest that mixing is very weak across the Arctic halocline, heat budget estimates nevertheless yield significant vertical fluxes.

Clouds reduce losses from upward heat flux and reflects more sunlight back into space — with SW reflection losses the more significant.

This still leaves aside the latent heat flux, which in general accounts for something like half the upward heat flux.

Not exact matches

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).

•» According to Zhang (2007) thermal expansion in the lower latitude is unlikely because of the reduced salt rejection and upper - ocean density and the enhanced thermohaline stratification tend to suppress convective overturning, leading to a decrease in the upward ocean heat transport and the ocean heat flux available to melt sea ice.

When there is no solar heating above some level, the net non-SW heat flux must be upward and constant at all levels from the tropopause to TOA in equilibrium, to balance solar heating below that level.

But then there's feedbacks within the stratosphere (water vapor), which would increase the stratospheric heating by upward radiation from below, as well as add some feedback to the downward flux at TRPP that the upward flux at TRPP would have to respond to via warming below TRPP.

In the approximation of zero non-radiative vertical heat fluxes above the tropopause, net upward LW flux = net downward SW flux (equal to all solar heating below) at each vertical level (in the global time average for an equilibrium climate state) at and above the tropopause (for global averaging, the «vertical levels» can just be closed surfaces around the globe that everywhere lie above or at the tropopause; the flux would then be through those surfaces, which wouldn't be precisely horizontal but generally approximately horizontal).

Before allowing the temperature to respond, we can consider the forcing at the tropopause (TRPP) and at TOA, both reductions in net upward fluxes (though at TOA, the net upward LW flux is simply the OLR); my point is that even without direct solar heating above the tropopause, the forcing at TOA can be less than the forcing at TRPP (as explained in detail for CO2 in my 348, but in general, it is possible to bring the net upward flux at TRPP toward zero but even with saturation at TOA, the nonzero skin temperature requires some nonzero net upward flux to remain — now it just depends on what the net fluxes were before we made the changes, and whether the proportionality of forcings at TRPP and TOA is similar if the effect has not approached saturation at TRPP); the forcing at TRPP is the forcing on the surface + troposphere, which they must warm up to balance, while the forcing difference between TOA and TRPP is the forcing on the stratosphere; if the forcing at TRPP is larger than at TOA, the stratosphere must cool, reducing outward fluxes from the stratosphere by the same total amount as the difference in forcings between TRPP and TOA.

The heat flux above the Atlantic temperature maximum is upward.

The increase / decrease of net upward LW flux going from one level to a higher level equals the net cooling / heating of that layer by LW radiation — in equilibrium this must be balanaced by solar heating / cooling + convective / conductive heating / cooling, and those are related to flux variation in height in the same way.

The skin layer planet is optically very thin, so it doesn't affect the OLR significantly, but (absent direct solar heating) the little bit of the radiant flux (approximatly equal to the OLR) from below that it absorbs must be (at equilibrium) balanced by emission, which will be both downward and upward, so the flux emitted in either direction is only half of what was absorbed from below; via Kirchhoff's Law, the temperature must be smaller than the brightness temperature of the OLR (for a grey gas, Tskin ^ 4 ~ = (Te ^ 4) / 2, where Te is the effective radiating temperature for the planet, equal to the brightness temperature of the OLR — *** HOWEVER, see below ***).

In general, so long as there is some solar heating beneath some level, there must be a net LW + convective heat flux upward at that level to balance it in equilibrium; convection tends to require some nonzero temperature decline with height, and a net upward LW flux requires either that the temperature declines with height on the scale of photon paths (from emission to absorption), or else requires at least a partial «veiw» of space, which can be blocked by increasing optical thickness above that level.

(PS I only know that those non-radiative fluxes are small — I would very much like to know numerically what they are (the upward kinetic energy flux and the heat flux of the thermally - indirect overturning).)

If the tropopause level LW flux were ever saturated over the whole LW portion of the spectrum, and there were still significant solar heating below that level, then the tropopause would tend to shift upward to where the LW flux is not saturated at some frequencies; in an equilibrium climate, the net LW flux out of the tropopause has to balance SW heating below the tropopause (in the approximation of zero non-radiative flux out of the tropopause), and thus can not be zero.

Non-radiative heat fluxes drop to approximately zero (at least for the global time average) going above the tropopause (there is a little leakage of convection through the stratosphere and mesosphere via upward propagation of kinetic energy and the Brewer - Dobson (does that term include the mesospheric part?)

There can / will be local and regional, latitudinal, diurnal and seasonal, and internal variability - related deviations to the pattern (in temperature and in optical properties (LW and SW) from components (water vapor, clouds, snow, etc.) that vary with weather and climate), but the global average effect is at least somewhat constrained by the global average vertical distribution of solar heating, which requires the equilibrium net convective + LW fluxes, in the global average, to be sizable and upward at all levels from the surface to TOA, thus tending to limit the extent and magnitude of inversions.)

In equilibrium these would be balanced by upward transfer of infrared radiation emitted by the surface, by sensible heat flux (warm air carried upward) and by latent heat flux (i.e. evaporation — moisture carried upward).

Solar heating at all levels beneath the tropopause, whether at the surface or aloft, still must be approximately balanced by the net upward LW flux at the tropopause in an equilibrium climate.

where SW denotes net downward shortwave radiation, LW net upward longwave radiation, LH latent heat flux, and SH sensible heat flux I can find these products at http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/gridded/data.ncep.reanalysis.surfaceflux.html Regarding the latent and sensible fluxes I don't have a problem (since there are only two in the NCEP list), but regarding the others I have several.

However, this contribution to sea - ice loss remains uncertain pending new field experiments that will provide estimates of upward AW heat fluxes.

delta - T is the change in surface temperature required to return the Upward IR Heat Flux to 267.057 W / m2, the 400 ppm value.

Using the default MODTRAN 3.5 values and setting CO2 to 380 ppm and 420 ppm, the upward IR heat flux, and related change, are provided in the table.

Values such as 0.70000 C are not known with this precision but precision is irrelevant because it is the residual of the 0.7 C anomaly (computed here as 0.003 C per 1.441 mm of near - surface depth for 2000 - 2010, 0.00538 C for 2013) that is adding the ocean heat, so if actual at ocean - air interface were, say, 0.726 C then it must be 0.723 C at 1.441 mm depth to reduce upward flux by 1.21 w / m ** 2 and cause the measured +138 ZettaJoules / decade.

To return to the original upward IR heat flux after increasing the CO2, the ground temperature must be increased by some value which is entered via Temperature Offset, C. Using the tropical atmosphere and Archibald's CO2 values, the adjustment is 0.11 °C which would yield an increase for doubling of 0.76 °C.

To summarise the arguments presented so far concerning ice - loss in the arctic basin, at least four mechanisms must be recognised: (i) a momentum - induced slowing of winter ice formation, (ii) upward heat - flux from anomalously warm Atlantic water through the surface low ‐ salinity layer below the ice, (iii) wind patterns that cause the export of anomalous amounts of drift ice through the Fram Straits and disperse pack - ice in the western basin and (iv) the anomalous flux of warm Bering Sea water into the eastern Arctic of the mid 1990s.

GHGs direct some of the upward radiative heat flux back down towards the surface, which means that when GHG concentrations are increased other heat fluxs (e.g. convection) must increase to compensate.

For instance, when the long wave radiation from the upper few micrometers of the ocean is upward, the skin temperature is usually cooler than the bulk SST.Latent and sensible heat fluxes can cool the sea surface further if the air is dryer or colder.

If we hold the latent and sensible heat fluxes constant, keep the atmosphere upward - downward ratio the same, and assume both surface and atmosphere emissivities at 1.0, then when we narrow the window ever so slightly, the surface temperature increases.

The 2008 K&T cartoon gives a NET upward radiation flux from the surface of 33w / m2 with a downward adjustment to water vapour to 76w / m2 and conduction to 16w / m2 but the point holds; that point is more net heat is leaving the surface through methods other than radiation, particularly water; that to me means 2 things; water is a dominant mover of heat compared to CO2 and the sun's 168/166 w / m2 is a far more dominant heater than CO2 backradiation.

Su — Fo (= Su — OLR (= G)-RRB- represents a net upward LW energy flow in the atmosphere, (Ed — Eu)(= G) represents a net downward LW flux (as we said: Ed is the downwelling radiative heating, Eu has it energetic source in the sum of K and F).