Sentences with phrase «with radiative flux»

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

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

Not exact matches

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

However, it is the atmosphere with increased greenhouse gases which makes the additional insulation and this is what effects the changing radiative fluxes that we are talking about.

Spencer and Braswell (2010) used middle tropospheric temperature anomalies and although they did not consider any time lag they may have observed some feedback processes with negligible time lag considering that the tropospheric temperature is better correlated to the radiative flux than the surface air 15 temperature.

Changes in the planetary and tropical TOA radiative fluxes are consistent with independent global ocean heat - storage data, and are expected to be dominated by changes in cloud radiative forcing.

Physically, the extra GHG is causing a reduction in the total outgoing radiation at a certain T, and so the planet must warm to re-satisfy radiative equilibrium with the absorbed incoming stellar flux.

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..

Energy fluxes into the ocean are a combination of radiative (LW + SW), sensible and latent (and a bunch of small terms associated with rivers, icebergs, sea ice etc.).

In this way, the response of LW fluxes (PR) and convection (CR) tend to spread the temperature response vertically from where forcings occur — not generally eliminating the effect of RF distribution over height, although in the case with convection driven by differential radiative heating within a layer, CR can to a first approximation evenly distribute a temperature response over such a layer.

(where the trend in net monochromatic flux reverses) before reaching the ultimate saturation; if this situation came up, after each «pseudosaturation», the radiative forcing can still be estimated with a band - widenning effect outside the central region where the last «pseudosaturation» has taken effect, minus the contribution from whatever is happenning in the center (think in terms of positive and negative areas on the graph).

The variation of RF over a layer, increasing / decreasing with height, means that there is a forced convergence / divergence of radiative fluxes; the RF acting on a layer is equal to the difference between RF at the top and bottom of the layer and is positive / negative if the RF is greater / smaller at the top.

Within a convecting layer, convective fluxes can also be part of the response, but where convection is bounded within a layer, the layer as a whole must respond with radiation to radiative forcings and feedbacks.)

Using the modtran model on line I get a radiative forcing from 10 * atmospheric methane of 3.4 Watts / m2 (the difference in the instantaneous IR flux out, labeled Iout, between cases with and without 10x methane).

Radiative forcing is not to be confused with cloud radiative forcing, which describes an unrelated measure of the impact of clouds on the radiative flux at the top of the atmospherRadiative forcing is not to be confused with cloud radiative forcing, which describes an unrelated measure of the impact of clouds on the radiative flux at the top of the atmospherradiative forcing, which describes an unrelated measure of the impact of clouds on the radiative flux at the top of the atmospherradiative flux at the top of the atmosphere.»

If CO2 were increased in a pulse of a few parts per million — the atmosphere warms rapidly and there may be a very temporary imbalance in radiative flux at TOA before equilibrium is restored with a warmer atmosphere.

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 decadal changes in TOA flux associated with ENSO and the PDO suggest that the longer term patterns associated with changing SST over centuries to millennia are associated with significant but unknowable changes in cloud radiative forcing.

Climate shifts in the Pacific Ocean with global implications for hydrology and radiative flux feedbacks.

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.

This must happen in order to keep radiative balance with the Sun, because the area under the plot is approximately related to the outward flux.

Cloud radiative effects are studied in combination with Earth Radiation Budget Experiment fluxes.

Unforced natural cloud variability with significant interannual and decadal changes in the radiative flux.

Spectral considerations matter despite what idiots who ignore them argue with their ridiculous sums of radiative flux from the Sun and the Earth as taught in Universities and alarmist sites.

I disagree, the paper below shows that that even for deep midwinter Antarctica with extremely low humidity, clear skies conditions, the radiative flux from H2O vapour was more than twice that for CO2.

Adding a differential equation to account for the slowing of the radiative flux would bring Tom's analysis in line with the mainstream.

On the basis of the mean areal GHG fluxes in our data set, the majority (79 %) of CO2 equivalents from reservoirs occurred as CH4, with CO2 and N2O responsible for 17 % and 4 % of the radiative forcing, respectively, over the 100 - year timespan.

As I pointed out in an earlier post, the weakness in Tom's argument is you have to deal with a temperature gradient and the radiative flux gradient which is ignored in LTE model.

Dubious, I googled «must be determined by the radiative fluxes» and found a guest post by Willis Eschenbach at WUWT that questions that and other assertions, along with many reasonable comments.

In all of these simple models, we assume the atmosphere to have a volume as fixed as a bathtub, we assume that the atmosphere / ocean system is a closed system, we assume that the incoming radiation from the Sun is constant, we assume no turbulence, we assume no viscosity, we assume radiative equilibrium with no feedback lag, we take no account of water vapor flux assuming it to be constant, no change in albedo from changes in land use, glacier lengthening and shortening, no volcanic eruptions, no feedbacks from vegetation.

This is achieved through the study of three independent records, the net heat flux into the oceans over 5 decades, the sea - level change rate based on tide gauge records over the 20th century, and the sea - surface temperature variations... We find that the total radiative forcing associated with solar cycles variations is about 5 to 7 times larger than just those associated with the TSI variations, thus implying the necessary existence of an amplification mechanism, although without pointing to which one.

F., M. Köhler, J. D. Farrara and C. R. Mechoso, 2002: The impact of stratocumulus cloud radiative properties on surface heat fluxes simulated with a general circulation model.

[*] You had said: «is based purely on observational evidence, with no dependence on any climate model simulations... to obtain a direct measure of the overall climate response or feedback parameter... Measuring radiative flux imbalances provides a direct measure of Y, and hence of S, unlike other ways of diagnosing climate sensitivity.»

If you took a bowl of hot soup and surrounded it on all sides with ice, then the radiative flux from the ice does not heat the soup at all.

So large radiative flux numbers on average have not a lot to do with long - term warming.

(iii) Our method of calculation for the overlap of H2O and CO2 absorption bands and our evaluation of the radiative flux integrals are not identical with theirs.

TABLE Summary of methane release scenarios compared with present - day methane fluxes and the radiative impact of business - as - usual CO2 rise.

For example, Chase et al. (2000a) found that regional land - use change can cause significant climate effects in other regions through teleconnections, even with a near - zero change in global averaged radiative flux.

Everything else, movement of water with different temperature up and down and back and forth is ocean dynamics and has got nothing to do with the assumed increased downward radiative flux from the atmosphere.

So to argue for the insignificance of the thermosphere to radiative balance it is not sufficient to point to its small mass and number of molecules — one must accompany this with physics showing for instance the mean free path of photons between interactions with air molecules to be sufficiently long that the thermosphere will not significantly affect outgoing flux.

Net UP IR in any wavelength interval from the Earth's surface in radiative and convective equilibrium with the atmosphere is the vector sum of UP and DOWN fluxes in the opposing emission spectra.

Air temperature is a nonconservative, intensive variable whose local value depends not only upon the radiative fluxes driven by thermalization of insolation, but upon upon the atmoshperic pressure, in accordance with Boyle's law.

Spencer and Braswell (2010) used middle tropospheric temperature anomalies and although they did not consider any time lag they may have observed some feedback processes with negligible time lag considering that the tropospheric temperature is better correlated to the radiative flux than the surface air 15 temperature.

It is easy to confuse calculated TOA imbalance (or radiative forcing), caused by increasing GHGs or other perturbations, with actual TOA flux, which must remain equal to F0 in the long term.

In other words, a bigger share of the 240 W / m 2 of the vertical energy transport will be transported by convective / advective means with a stronger GHE, and a smaller share by radiative means because the sum of convective vertical energy transport plus the diminished radiative flux must add up to about 240 W / m 2 in order to balance the incoming shortwave radiation.

The conceptual picture of the GHE can be examined in terms of estimates of Z T254K, the» fuzziness» of the OLR, and a quantification of the vertical energy flow associated with other forms than radiative fluxes.

With this idealization the model climate, all statistics of the flow — temperatures, precipitation, clouds, radiative fluxes — are functions of latitude (and height) only, and not longitude or time of year, making for a much simpler system to analyze.

The fact that the new B0 (skin temperature) changes with the surface temperature and total optical depth, can seriously alter the convective flux estimates of previous radiative - convective model computations.

With this new study have we not reached the point at which the level of variation in radiative flux approaches the level of variation in solar irradiance?

SoD, this is a long post so I'll finish with this thought: why is radiative flux equated with heat transfer as the backradiation appears to be?