Sentences with phrase «with radiative»

His point being the atmosphere or the gases within can react with radiative energy to change it's wavelength and thus set up an oscillating field that traps some of the incoming energy.

Neutrino, I hope it is not too presumptuous for me to say that to do calculations with a radiative model and then chuck in an atmosphere saying that the temperature to be reached is what we have in reality, and this is totally due to a (radiative) «greenhouse effect», screams loudly to me you have one foot in a model and the other in reality.

Consequently whilst the temperature variations may be correlated to a greater or lesser extent with radiative flux anomalies (< 7Wm - 2), they could be wholly or partially caused / explained by interannual variations in

[Fifth, the short purple line is with radiative forcing (i.e greenhouse gas concentrations) frozen at 2000 levels, which, of course, didn't happen.]

So what I suspect was done was that the algorithm was switched on together with the radiative code at each time period.

Tyndall's main interest was with water vapour and its impact on radiation, but he also dealt with the radiative forcing of other greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide.

So the difference temperature is mainly controlled by the adiabatic law between ground and and tropopause — and this can NOT be computed only with radiative physics.

The long term trend is that of cooling with a radiative forcing from 1850 to 2000 of -0.7 Wm - 2.

JimD, «There is a thought experiment that can be helped with a radiative transfer model like Modtran.

Prigent, C., J.R. Pardo, M.I. Mishchenko, and W.B. Rossow, 2001: Microwave polarized scattering signatures in clouds: Special Sensor Microwave / Imager (SSM / I) observations interpreted with radiative transfer simulations.

Another consideration in devising metrics for nonradiative forcings is enabling direct comparison with radiative forcings, computed in units of watts per square meter.

The measurements are only for clear sky conditions, to remove the complexity associated with the radiative effects of clouds (they did this by removing the measurements that appeared to be under cloudy conditions).

Our results, simulated with a radiative - photochemical model, are consistent with contemporaneous measurements of ozone from the Aura - MLS satellite, although the short time period makes precise attribution to solar effects difficult.

Climatology has yet to model climate to the first significant figure, and it is never going to get there with the radiative forcing paradigm (the GCMs).

It is not consistent with a radiative model of heat transport in the atmosphere.

I can see no basis whatsoever to believe any number associated with radiative forcing.

The strong relationship between peatland area and peat type with radiative forcing suggests a possible feedback for future changing climate, as high - latitude peatlands may experience prominent regime shifts, such as fen to bog transitions.

Well, as you can see from this thread, you might be OK with radiative transfer code, but plenty of others are confused about radiation and the conservation of energy, in general.

So how does that compare with the radiative transfer model, which gives a model - derived experimental result of 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 0.2 °C.

For the love of all that is rationally logical, what does CO2's tendency to come out of solution as T goes up have to do with the radiative properties of the molecule in its gaseous phase in the atmosphere?!

Your claim proven as a theorem now means basically (with some radiative cooling at the top for the return flow) that it does not need confirmation by numerical modelling, but rather, application, to see how it plays out in real atmospheric problems.

Compare this with the difference between atmosphere and space (with radiative transfer).

So simply from basic thermodynamics and heat transfer considerations when you're dealing with a radiative imbalance El Nino is likely to heat the earth up as much as La Nina cools it.

He uses Kirchhoff's law, which is a law concerning thermal equilibrium, not to be confused with radiative equilibrium.

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

As empirical Experiment 4 shows, such an non-radiative will run far hotter than an atmosphere with radiative cooling at altitude.

There are also significant uncertainties associated with some radiative forcings (aerosols in particular), and the possibility that climate feedbacks are not linear (e.g. discussed in Long and Collins 2013).

Thermal radiative equilibrium for his black boundaries is isothermal, and if the gas has a different thermal equilibrium then the system perpetually violates the second law with a radiative - gravitaional «heat fountain» that runs without work being done, precisely as my silver wire example does.

It is that simple and nothing to do with radiative abilities of molecules of GHG.

Satellite instruments provide global maps of surface UV irradiance by combining backscattered radiance measurements with radiative transfer models.

I actually don't deal with radiative transfer, there are enough papers (see among others the reference above) that do that quite nicely.

With a dominant internal component having the structure of the observed warming, and with radiative restoring strong enough to keep the forced component small, how can one keep the very strong radiative restoring from producing heat loss from the oceans totally inconsistent with any measures of changes in oceanic heat content?

Do you agree with the century old science that explains that 33 C and 150 W / m2 is the current level of GHG warming and that science can explain it quantitatively with radiative transfer theory, or would you even dispute Arrhenius?

I have never heard of anyone use the term «impedance» in connection with radiative transfer, unless they were talking about the impedance to the electromagnetic field...

An obsession with radiative theory when discussing climate change is as unhelpful as would have been obsessing about the theory of gravity and ignoring the lift effect of an aerofoil before heavier - than - air flight was proved to be practical.

The rationale advanced for focusing on negative emissions approaches are usually the threat posed by burgeoning emissions, which could result in exceeding of critical climatic thresholds in a few decades, as well as system inertia, which could lock in temperature increases associated with radiative forcing for many centuries.

Because AGW proponents (Lukes and warmists) can not explain how or why the surface temperature is related to radiation reaching that surface (in other words, it has nothing to do with radiative balance) they can not assume that altering radiative balance will affect surface temperature.

Not so simple with radiative fluxes, and few even try it that way, but they tell you the same thing.

Estimates of CO2 rise are 20 — 35 ppmv within 200 years, a rate less than 29 — 50 % compared to the anthropogenic global warming signal from the past 50 years, and with a radiative forcing of 0.59 — 0.75 W m − 2.

The parameterization of the interactions are at all levels; from estimation of the geometric characterization of the aerosols, to the numbers of particles, to connections with several important aspects of clouds, and finally to the interactions with radiative energy transport.

Molecules with radiative absorption capability will produce an atmosphere of a different volume at the same surface temperature and mass as compared to an atmosphere without such a capability.

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.

The moon example was to illustrate that with radiative heat transfer, cooler objects can transfer heat to warmer ones, because heat outflux is solely dependent on the temperature and material properties of the radiator.

So for example deglaciation warmed global mean temps by about 5 C over 10k years with a radiative forcing of about 6.5 W / m2 (total of both GHG increases and albedo decreases).

These models consist of connected sub-modules that deal with radiative transfer, the circulation of the atmosphere and oceans, the physics of moist convection and cloud formation, sea ice, soil moisture and the like.

[Response: Hansen's degree was in astrophysics, not astronomy, and dealt with radiative transfer in the Venusian atmosphere as a function of aerosols and greenhouse gases — pretty relevant I'd say.

«This research builds on our previous work with radiative sky cooling but takes it to the next level.

Comparing our images with a radiative transfer model we argue that the southern side of the disk is most likely the nearest.

A particular emphasis of Hayward's research is on combining hydrodynamic simulations of galaxy formation with radiative transfer calculations to create «forward models» of observable quantities, such as images and spectra, that can be directly compared with data from telescopes such as the Hubble Space Telescope.

For this new idea to have merit, it had better have heat fluxes at least on par with the radiative forcing from CO2.