Sentences with phrase «with radiative heat»

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.

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.

«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.»

Guemas et al. (Nature Climate Change 2013) shows that the slower warming of the last ten years can not be explained by a change in the radiative balance of our Earth, but rather by a change in the heat storage of the oceans, and that this can be at least partially reproduced by climate models, if one accounts for the natural fluctuations associated with El Niño in the initialization of the models.

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.

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.

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..

Nature (with hopefully some constructive input from humans) will decide the global warming question based upon climate sensitivity, net radiative forcing, and oceanic storage of heat, not on the type of multi-decadal time scale variability we are discussing here.

... interestingly in the grey gas case with no solar heating of the stratosphere, increasing the optical thickness of the atmosphere would result in an initial cooling of and in the vicinity of the skin layer (reduced OLR), and an initial radiative warming of the air just above the surface (increased backradiation)-- of course, the first of those dissappears at full equilibrium.

In full equilibrium, at any given level, there may be some net radiative heating at some frequencies compensated by some net radiative cooling at other frequencies, with convection balancing the full spectrum radiative cooling of the troposphere and heating of the surface.

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.

Secondly, unlike the global average surface temperature trend, which has a lag with respect to radiative forcing, there is no such lag when heat content is measured in Joules (see http://blue.atmos.colostate.edu/publications/pdf/R-247.pdf).

If you can't keep up with annual - decadal changes in the TOA radiative imbalance or ocean heat content (because of failure to correctly model changes in the atmosphere and ocean due to natural variability), then your climate model lacks fidelity to the real world system it is tasked to represent.

The lapse rate within the troposphere is largely determined by convection, which redistributes any changes in radiative heating or cooling within the troposphere + surface so that all levels tend to shift temperature similarly (with some regional / latitudinal, diurnal, and seasonal exceptions, and some exceptions for various transient weather events).

Using TOA radiative imbalances instead of ocean heat uptake (which can not be directly observed with sufficient precision) would be pointless.

Meehl et al., 2011 (doi: 10.1038 / NCLIMATE1229) show that with a similar radiative imbalance, hiatus periods and non-hiatus periods can occur, and that in the first case larger heat storage in the deep ocean takes place.

In the tugging on the temperature profile (by net radiant heating / cooling resulting from radiative disequilibrium at single wavelengths) by the absorption (and emission) by different bands, the larger - scale aspects of the temperature profile will tend to be shaped more by the bands with moderate amounts of absorption, while finer - scale variations will be more influenced by bands with larger optical thicknesses per unit distance (where there can be significant emission and absorption by a thinner layer).

Re my 441 — competing bands — To clarify, the absorption of each band adds to a warming effect of the surface + troposphere; given those temperatures, there are different equilibrium profiles of the stratosphere (and different radiative heating and cooling rates in the troposphere, etc.) for different amounts of absorption at different wavelengths; the bands with absorption «pull» on the temperature profile toward their equilibria; disequilibrium at individual bands is balanced over the whole spectrum (with zero net LW cooling, or net LW cooling that balances convective and solar heating).

One can not define a temperature at any point in the column with latent heating alone, without appealing to radiative transfer.

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.

The heat from this radiative forcing then goes back down, through the atmospheric CO2 and water vapor, through the clouds, and down to the surface where it has sex with liquid water.

The water vapor cooled the Earth, the snow cooled the atmosphere with resulting increase in surface albedo which does reflect radiative heat, meaning the Earth gets less warm, not colder because of it.

Considering the heat capacity of the oceans is about 1,100 times greater than the air, would not even a modest change in cloud cover affect the radiative balance with far greater magnitude than a parts - per - million change in an atmospheric gas constituent?

It's counter-intuitive to hypothesize that, say for example only, AST going quite flat then dropping for a while indicates «global warming» increasing simultaneous with the AST dropping (oceans take heat suddenly in my example, AST drops, TOA radiative imbalance increases).

Introduction of nondimensional variables w ≡ Wρ / β and p = P / (q Oβ) results in the nondimensional equation which depends on two parameters only: The dimensionless net radiative influx r ≡ R · ɛαρ2 / (C pβ2) and a measure for the relative role of latent and advective heat transport Large l corresponds to a strong influence of moisture advection (scaling as Lq Oβp) on the continental heat budget compared with heat advection by large - scale and synoptic processes (scaling as C pβ2 w 2 / (αɛρ2)-RRB-.

The formula is based on known ideas due to Arrhenius in 1896 and Hofmann in 2009 (that the portion of atmospheric CO2 above the preindustrial level is growing exponentially), with the added twist that the oceanic heat sink delays the impact of radiative forcing variations on HadCRUT3 by 15 years, analogously to the overheating of a CPU being delayed by the addition of a heatsink with no fan, what I refer to as the Hansen delay.

As you say, convection uses up a lot of energy too and also counters the idea of radiative heat transfer as a big ticket item because «hot» CO2 molecules only remain so for a brief fraction of a second before they collide with N2 or O2 to warm that localised parcel of air; which then rises to attain equilibrium T somewhere higher and at a COLDER temp so no rad Transf!!!

Given the vast pool of very cold water in the deep ocean, even modest changes in the rate it exchanges heat with the surface can produce large changes in temperature without any change in the planetary radiative balance.

The climate response depends not only upon the TOA forcing, but its difference with respect to the surface value, which represents radiative heating within the atmosphere.

«The dual wave and particle nature of radiation is recognised, but it is considered more appropriate, and indeed necessary, for an understanding of radiative heat transfer to consider the frequencies and intensities associated with the wave nature of radiation, for only then can the one - way transfer of heat be described and quantified in a meaningful manner.»

Land warms quicker than ocean with the same change in radiative input: specific heat capacity being the main reason.

You can easily prove this coupled concept with a beach windbreak: erect it and the sand temperature rises to keep the sum of convective and radiative heat loss equal to the SW thermalisation; drop the windbreak and sand temperature falls as convection increases.

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 contWith 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 contwith 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 contwith any measures of changes in oceanic heat content?

''... 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?»

«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.»

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.

The warm / rainy phase of a composited average of fifteen oscillations is accompanied by a net reduction in radiative input into the ocean - atmosphere system, with longwave heating anomalies transitioning to longwave cooling during the rainy phase.

I thought that in the adiabatic case (in order to mirror the atmosphere) there is nil radiative or conductive heat flow.That is the standard atmosphere model where conduction is very small compared with other energy transfers.

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.

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.

The latest catchphrase is that GHGs «slow down» the radiative heat loss by «scattering» a portion — some say half — and therefore the Earth's surfaces do not cool down as much as they would during the night as they would with less GHGs.

The reason is that for a macroscopic object such as an ordinary mercury thermometer or a spacecraft, radiative heating and cooling processes will dominate (by orders of magnitude) over convective heat transfer with the thin thermosphere.

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.

Prof Curry: While Chen and Tung's argument and mechanism is convincing, it is not at all clear to me from the paper that the amount of heat sequestered in the ocean is commensurate with the TOA radiative imbalance and the amount of heat that would be required to keep the surface temperatures from increasing in the presence of increasing anthropogenic greenhouse forcing.

No: that is the beauty of using top of atmosphere radiative balance data — it automatically reflects the flow of heat into the ocean, so thermal inertia of the oceans is irrelevant to the estimate of equilibrium climate sensitivity that it provides, unlike with virtally all other instrumental methods.

The first part concerning Trenberth's «missing heat» debate, which is to reconcile the very uncertain TOA radiative imbalance measured by satellites with ocean heat content increase.

While Chen and Tung's argument and mechanism is convincing, it is not at all clear to me from the paper that the amount of heat sequestered in the ocean is commensurate with the TOA radiative imbalance and the amount of heat that would be required to keep the surface temperatures from increasing in the presence of increasing anthropogenic greenhouse forcing.

Some replies to the questions you raised there: «While Chen and Tung's argument and mechanism is convincing, it is not at all clear to me from the paper that the amount of heat sequestered in the ocean is commensurate with the TOA radiative imbalance and the amount of heat that would be required to keep the surface temperatures from increasing in the presence of increasing anthropogenic greenhouse forcing.»

That is how they view it, but they have, like Wikipedia, ignored mass transfer from heated surfaces to all gases, which would happen with or without any radiative component.