Sentences with phrase «upward radiation flux»

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.

The internal kinetic energy is taken as the upward long wave energy flux at the top of the atmosphere, and the potential energy is the upward radiation flux from the surface.

When expressed as a flux (a vector), OLR and DLR cancel to produce a net upward radiation flux (ca 390 - 333 = 56 W / m2).

Not exact matches

This means that there is an upward surface flux of LW around (~ 390 W / m2), while the outward flux at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) is roughly equivalent to the net solar radiation coming in (1 - a) S / 4 (~ 240 W / m2).

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.

Trends as a function of CSD, Saturation: If the temperature varies monotonically over the distance from which most of the radiation reaching that level is emitted, then increasing the CSD will bring the upward and downward fluxes and intensities (at a given angle) toward the same value, reducing the net intensities and fluxes, until eventually they approach zero (or a nonzero saturation value at TOA).

The downward radiation at the surface would be σ * (Tsa ^ 4 — 2/3 * T4grad) The upward radiation would have to be σ * (Tsa ^ 4 + 2/3 * T4grad) in order for the net upward flux to be constant through the air, which requires Ts ^ 4 = Tsa ^ 4 + 2/3 * T4grad.

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 equilibrium response to an addition of RF at a level is an increase in net upward flux consisting of LW radiation (the Planck response, PR) plus a convective flux response CR; CR is approximately zero at and above the tropopause in the global time average.

If it is in an isothermal layer, it will radiate upward as much as downward; it will decrease the baseline TRPP net flux and increase the baseline TOA flux by the same amount, but it will decrease the baseline TOA flux by a greater amount if it is absorbing radiation with a higher brightness temperature from below (the baseline upward flux at TRPP), so it will increase the amount by which the baseline net flux at TRPP is greater than that at TOA.

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).

The combination of decreasing upward flux and increasing downward flux add to a decreasing net upward flux (true for both SW and LW radiation).

Willis,» Surface upward LW flux = 398 W / m2 Available solar radiation = 162 W / m2 (after atmospheric absorption and albedo reflection)»

eadler2 -[Upward IR radiation flux] is what stabilizes the earth's climate and prevents it from running away.

The all - sky climatological greenhouse effect (the difference of the all - sky surface upward flux and absorbed solar flux) at this surface is equal to the reflected solar radiation.

Surface upward LW flux = 398 W / m2 Available solar radiation = 162 W / m2 (after atmospheric absorption and albedo reflection)

«But no radiative data is used» It must be incorporated in his model, he states «The all - sky climatological greenhouse effect (the difference of the all - sky surface upward flux and absorbed solar flux) at this surface is equal to the reflected solar radiation.»

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.

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.

So by KT97 if you let the surface be 289K as stated in TFK09 instead of 288K you can take: 67 Wm - 2 absorbed SW by the atmosphere plus 24 Wm - 2 carried upward by thermals (dry conduction / convection) plus 78 Wm - 2 carried upward by evaporation (convection) plus 66 Wm - 2 actual LW radiation flux upward (radiation)------ 235 Wm - 2 detected LW upwelling by satellites above the TOA

(On a related note, I think some people misinterpret those Energy budget diagrams showing upward and downward fluxes of radiation and convection, such as K&T and the later K, T&F (Trenberth et al 2009, first diagram here http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2010/03/02/global-warming-mapsgraphs-2/).

Notice that the upward longwave flux at TOA is 240 W / m ² — this balances the absorbed solar radiation.

And the value of the constant was obtained via the boundary condition: upward flux from the climate system must balance solar radiation.