Sentences with phrase «co2 back radiation»

Which is the CO2 back radiation effect without water amplification.

All you have to do is look at the graphs to see CO2 back radiation is a minor bit player when talking about the ocean.

Not exact matches

The molecular structure of CO2 is such that it is «tuned» to the wavelengths of infrared (heat) radiation emitted by the Earth's surface back into space, in particular to the 15 micrometer band.

I understand the general principle that more atmospheric CO2 reflects more IR radiation back to earth making earth warmer, but I want to know how do the models calculate the temperature rise.

Sorry to belabour an obvious fact, but the Earth has cooled — sunlight, blankets, CO2, H2O, back radiation and so on notwithstanding.

They don't have to be scientists to understand that the higher energy waves of visible light from the Sun can penetrate through CO2, H2O, CH4, NOZ etal in the atmosphere, but the lower energy radiation of infra - red waves, from Earth's surface, have problems getting back out through these molecules, and a new energy balance has to be established in the form of rising temperature.

############################## 3) What is the mechanism by which infrared radiation trapped by CO2 in the atmosphere is turned into heat and finds its way back to sea level?

Q3: What is the mechanism by which infrared radiation trapped by CO2 in the atmosphere is turned into heat and finds its way back to sea level?

Of course this is a global average but in principle I see no reason not to consider that some large percentage of the energy warming the tropical Pacific will be from «back radiation» (for which CO2 will be partly responsible) and thus not «direct from the sun.»

Biomass carbon oxidises back to CO2, releasing the same heat of combustion that generated it utilising SW radiation.

For example, increased well - mixed CO2 and water vapor decrease the rate of heat loss through back radiation.

In itself I do nt think the positive feedback can be disputed as it is just based on the effect of CO2 on solar radiation coming in and radiation from the earth going back out.

CO2 absorbs and re-emits longwave radiation, scattering a portion back down.

If extra human CO2 does warm the top millimetre of the ocean a little before the extra down welling infrared radiation is bounced back up by the almost impermeable ocean surface then the air immediately above the ocean surface will promptly warm up.

What I'm thinking is that the primary way that the energy captured by CO2 gets dissipated is not radiation, partly back to the surface, but primarily upwards convention as the kinetic transfer between gas molecules moves the heat rapidly throughout the atmosphere.

CO2 traps heat According to radiative physics and decades of laboratory measurements, increased CO2 in the atmosphere is expected / predicted to absorb more infrared radiation as it escapes back out to space.

This acts as a positive feedback on the surface warming, because water vapor itself is a powerful greenhouse gas that, like CO2, absorbs and re-emits longwave radiation back to the surface.

Their «CO2 warming by back radiation» is a fiction, because, again, it was proven that back radiation does not warm (or slows down cooling, whatever) at all or does to a negligible extent.

The increased water vapour blocks long wave radiation which causes an increase in temperature of tropical troposphere at around 8K and an increase in long wave radiation, a portion of which is emitted back down to the surface of the planet to amplify the CO2 forcing.

For example, until fairly recently, it was not even known that CO2 also has absorptions in the UV region, which is how we now can identify it, qualitatively at least, on other planets, due to its back radiation... (= cooling)

some of my favorite graphs that show it is the SUN that warms the ocean and «back radiation» from CO2 can not even penetrate beyond a couple of molecules in depth.

2) I've read that atmospheric CO2 acts like a dam: when it warms up, it emits more and more infrared radiation in all directions, one of those directions being back down to Earth.

It is kind of like a surface prophylactic shield from demon CO2 «back radiation».

Alarmists are obsessed with the additional energy that they believe to come from back - radiation from manmade CO2 in the atmosphere.

But CO2 combined with the sun does indeed warm due to the back - scattering of infrared radiation.

It's not rocket science just the physical response of a common substance (H2O) to illumination by back - radiation from CO2.

The inflowing Pacific Waters spread across half the Arctic Ocean with a heat equivalent equal to, and up to twice as great, as possible heat estimated from CO2 back - radiation.

There is no significant CO2 - AGW — it takes a really bad scientific education to believe in «back radiation», but that is the case for the Atmospheric Sciences whose well was poisoned by Sagan's basic physics» mistakes.......

CO2 radiation at high above is cold (depends on altitudes, latitudes, and longitudes, say from 0degreeC to -60 degreeC) can not radiate net heat back to the Earth which is at a higher temperature.

IF ongoing planetary heating from CO2 back - radiation is continuing but being hidden a-la-Trenberth in the oceans, then this ocean heat would be visible as an increase in sea level rise.

Millions of electronic CO2 sensors that control ventiliation fans in high occupancy buildings use the consequence of back radiation at a resonant frequency of CO2 to determine concentration in the ambient air.

If CO2 actually possessed the capacity to emit «powerful back radiation» its thermal conductivity results would reflect this by being larger not smaller.

A consequence of the model you have proposed would seem to be that the «back radiation» due to CO2 interception of surface emitted (from solid or liquid continuum thermal radiation can consist only of the specific wavelengths that the CO2 absorbed in the first place; since you say no net energy is exchanged between the CO2 and the Atmosphere.

In reality, most GW doesn't come from GHGs and these hysterical attempts to purport imaginary cloud cooling is hiding equally imaginary high feedback CO2 - AGW, an artefact of the false «back radiation» idea, has seriously damaged science and many economies.

2) The ammount of radiation received by the CO2 is the same as the ammount it radiates back.

He has stated that additional CO2 should have a small effect on temperatures but I have not heard of him endorsing the illogical idea of «back radiation» (to which I believe you refer) as a warming process in the atmosphere.

They usually say that their assertion about CO2 or «back radiation» in general does not contradict the 2nd Law of thermodynamics, but this is irrelevant, because they simply can not prove experimentally, that this «back radiation» works.

I have written a piece on this that I think we can later call «Back radiation CO2 — 101» for those interested in the basics.

In all the bands that are responsible for back radiation in the brightness temperatures (color temperatures) related to earth's surface temperature (between 9 microns and 13 microns for temps of 220K to 320 K) there is no absorption of radiation by CO2 at all.

I suggest you go to Back - radiation CO2 — 101 http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-Aug-2011 and study that.

I'm a professional infrared astronomer who spent his life trying to observe space through the atmosphere's back - radiation that the environmental activists claim is caused by CO2 and guess what?

Not only did the relative CO2 contribution drop in Summer, but the back radiation value decreased from about 30 Winter to about 10 W / m2 Summer.

Spencer's article lends support to the discredited idea that cold CO2 [carbon dioxide] high in the atmosphere back - radiates to Earth's warmer surface, heating it more and causing it to radiate to the atmosphere and space with higher intensity than it would without cold CO2 back - radiation.

It is something that so - called skeptics will ban any scientific discussion that questions the prevailing James Hansen mythology of CO2 warming the earth by 33 degrees via «back - radiation».

That means that they do not believe in back - radiation, but believe that CO2 acts like insulation.

If the CO2 was the entire cause of warming due to back radiation would not the atmosphere need to be warming in lockstep with the oceans?

I do not believe that the back radiation from the magical gas CO2 (or any other gas for that matter) actually slows any cooling at all.

Yah — CO2 was higher millions of years ago, but twas a very different planet back then, solar radiation about 6 % lower, different day length, continents and hence ocean currents in a completely different configuration.

Note that the * current * increasing greenhouse gas effect is mostly above the point at which 90 % of water vapour resides (< ~ 4 km altitude) so there's lots of that + CO2 at 4 km - ~ 16 km altitude to send some radiation back down.

When we add CO2 to this system the back radiation to the surface increases and its temperature starts to increase.