Sentences with phrase «co2 radiative cooling»

The reason is much larger relative role of the CO2 radiative cooling compared to the NO radiative cooling under solar minimum conditions as confirmed by SABER / TIMED measurements (Mlynczak et al. 2010).

And of course totally ignoring that CO2 radiative cooling implies that emitted photons only move outbound and (possibly) are not reabsorbed and thermalized on the way out.

Not exact matches

Stratospheric cooling as a result of excess CO2 does influence ozone recovery, and ozone changes in the troposphere and stratosphere to have effects on radiative balance of the planet.

On the possibility of a changing cloud cover «forcing» global warming in recent times (assuming we can just ignore the CO2 physics and current literature on feedbacks, since I don't see a contradiction between an internal radiative forcing and positive feedbacks), one would have to explain a few things, like why the diurnal temperature gradient would decrease with a planet being warmed by decreased albedo... why the stratosphere should cool... why winters should warm faster than summers... essentially the same questions that come with the cosmic ray hypothesis.

The troposphere is currently cooling radiatively at about 2K / day, and adding CO2 to the atmosphere generally increases the radiative cooling (primarily through increases in water vapor, though how these details play out also depend on the details of the surface budget).

In the stratosphere, the increased radiative cooling with more CO2 is a ubiquitous feature of double - CO2 simulations and this leads to a drop in the temperature there.

Because latent heat release in the course of precipitation must be balanced in the global mean by infrared radiative cooling of the troposphere (over time scales at which the atmosphere is approximately in equilibrium), it is sometimes argued that radiative constraints limit the rate at which precipitation can increase in response to increasing CO2.

I would argue that if we use a simple radiative model with a variety of assumptions, no upper atmosphere cooling but only warming will occur with increased CO2 (see # 333), based on the radiative transfer equations and the Second Law of thermodynamics, but when other complexities are introduced, this might change.

Thus, at least if the CO2 band is sufficiently close to saturated at it's center at TRPP, and maybe even if it is not, the TRPP radiative forcing will be greater than the TOA radiative forcing for a doubling of CO2, so their will still be initial stratospheric cooling.

@RI: More CO2 raises the optical depth (in layman speak, the top of the GHG radiative «fog» above which IR is free to radiate to space and cool).

More CO2 raises the optical depth (in layman speak, the top of the GHG radiative «fog» above which IR is free to radiate to space and cool).

The collapse of the Sc clouds occurs because, as the free - tropospheric longwave opacity increases with increased CO2 and water vapor concentrations, the turbulent mixing that is driven by cloud - top radiative cooling weakens, and therefore is unable to maintain the Sc layer.

Then you say: «Your last item [Cooling of the Stratosphere consistent with operation of Greenhouse Effect] is just enhanced radiative cooling due to increasCooling of the Stratosphere consistent with operation of Greenhouse Effect] is just enhanced radiative cooling due to increascooling due to increased CO2.

warrenlb, nothing at that site supports your denial of the S - B basis of climate alarm, supports your neglect of the significance of rapid collisional vs. slow radiative decay of CO2 * in the troposphere, or supports your dismissal of CO2 * radiative decay as the source of stratospheric cooling.

The stratosphere cools with more CO2 because up there, the radiative decay rate is faster than the collisional decay.

This unique feature of the Antarctic atmosphere has been shown to result in a negative greenhouse effect and a negative instantaneous radiative forcing at the top of the atmosphere (RFTOA: INST), when carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations are increased, and it has been suggested that this effect might play some role in te recent cooling trends observed over East Antarctica.

This includes radiative forcings such as a warming sun, cooling from sulfate aerosols or warming from CO2.

The nifty thing is that CO2's radiative properties explain the predicted and observed stratospheric cooling to boot.

I routinely see temps 70F (or more) colder than the surface, while clouds are 10 or 20F colder, clouds control the radiative cooling rate of the surface, not Co2.

The magnitude of this effect varies from model to model and leads to increased adiabatic heating of the polar regions, compensating in part the increased radiative cooling from CO2 increases.

I think it is a true statement to say that if increasing CO2 since the industrial revolution has had an effect, then the recent record setting low in Bartlesville, OK would be impossible, since it is all radiative cooling.

In the idealised situation that the climate response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 consisted of a uniform temperature change only, with no feedbacks operating (but allowing for the enhanced radiative cooling resulting from the temperature increase), the global warming from GCMs would be around 1.2 °C (Hansen et al., 1984; Bony et al., 2006).

The shape of the CO2 band is such that, once saturated near the center over sufficiently small distances, increases in CO2 don't have much affect on the net radiative energy transfer from one layer of air to the other so long as CO2 is the only absorbing and emitting agent — but increases in CO2 will reduce the LW cooling of the surface to space, the net LW cooling from the surface to the air, the net LW cooling of the atmosphere to space (except in the stratosphere), and in general, it will tend to reduce the net LW cooling from a warmer to cooler layer when at least one of those layers contains some other absorbing / emitting substance (surface, water vapor, clouds) or is space)

Gerlich and Tscheuschner, despite their apparent mastery of the mathematics of radiative transfer, don't know the difference between gross and net radiative flux, and they are apparently unaware of the concept of causality in an Einsteinian framework — a molecule of CO2 emitting a photon in a random direction can't know if there is a (cooler or warmer) surface in the direction of emission until time has elapsed for the photon to travel to the surface and back, and has no mechanism to remember from one photon to the next whether there was a source of photons in that direction, or what the apparent temperature of the emitter was.

Here luck was on Broecker's side: the warming by other greenhouse gases and the cooling by aerosols largely cancel today, so considering only CO2 leads to almost the same radiative forcing as considering all anthropogenic effects on climate (see IPCC AR4, Fig.