Sentences with phrase «co2 radiative physics»

Are you saying that climate is only CO2 radiative physics, webby?

I said:» Climate is not only CO2 radiative physics.»

Climate is not only CO2 radiative physics.

Not exact matches

A clear explanation of radiative forcing, CO2 infrared opacity and how additional atmospheric CO2 will contribute to significant warming would be important to many of trying to explain the physics of global warming.

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.

We will confine the discussion to changes within the CO2 absorption wavelengths, because regardless of how much or how little OLR is emanating within these wavelengths, if the principles of radiative physics are violated there, the argument fails.

By established principles of radiative physics, a warmer LP should emit more IR within the CO2 wavelengths, including IR upward into the UP.

In other words, the fundamental reason scientists think atmospheric CO2 strongly affects the global temperature is not climate model output — it's just * basic radiative physics *!

I'm referring to people that 1) don't believe in radiative physics 2) claim that CO2 can only do good 5) do not support advanced air pollution control for toxics and short duration GHGs Ok yes, there is the odd handful of those.

I look at the basics of radiative physics and ask follow - up questions about details, including details entailed in non-radiative physics My favorite questions to date: (1) if, as Chris Colose wrote in the earlier thread, Willis Eschenbach's graphical analysis of cloud cover and temperature is basically correct, does that not make a reasonable case that cloud cover increases can be expected to prevent future warming from future CO2 increases?

People simply fail to look at the most basic of radiative physics in assessing the impact of atmospheric CO2 on global surface temperature.

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.

[DB] Climastrological attempts to explain away the known radiative physics of CO2 warming due to semimythical cycles can be aptly described as «Mathturbation».

It seems your colleagues admit, however unwillingly, that the focus on radiative physics and the obsession on CO2 has not produced a complete understanding of the climate system.

@ monty» you would then have to explain why elevated CO2 wasn't having the radiative effect that atmospheric physics predicts»

IF GCRs were driving recent warming, you would then have to explain why elevated CO2 wasn't having the radiative effect that atmospheric physics predicts.

This essay is an attempt to link real world observations (the failure of surface temperatures to rise in tandem with atmospheric CO2) to basic physics and thereby show why the radiative characteristics of Greenhouse Gases can not increase the surface temperature of a planet when atmospheric mass, the strength of the gravitational field and the power of insolation at the top of the atmosphere remain the same.

This is simple radiative physics that can be demostrated in a column of CO2 and in other ways.

For myself, I call into question not the «basic radiative transfer physics» but the completeness and accuracy of the atmospheric models: all of the equations are approximations, the response of clouds to CO2 increase and warming are not well known, yet AGW proponents act as though a slight increase in temp following a long increase in CO2 is a sure thing.

The green curve in Figure 2 is in outstanding agreement with the well - understood physics of radiative forcing by CO2.

Of course feedbacks can have offsetting effects — but if you accept the radiative physics of AGW, then you believe that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes global warming.

It's perfectly possible for the radiative physics to be spot - on and for CO2 concentrations to increase while surface and tropospheric temperatures warm only slowly — at least for a decade or two.

-- robust radiative physics — ground - based instrumental evidence that CO2 absorbs and therefore emits IR exactly in accordance with the physical theory — satellite data confirming this — satellite data apparently indicating a radiative imbalance at TOA — robust measurements of the fraction of atmospheric CO2 — increasing global OHC since the mid-C20th

Nothing about radiative physics effect says emitting CO2 ensures warming.

«Stopped» means there will be no more warming and if you agree that adding more CO2 will cause more warming via radiative heat transfer physics, then by adding more CO2 you can not «stop» the warming.

The problem with this particular fantasy kim is that the physics of radiative transfer mean that increasing the fraction of atmospheric CO2 will cause energy to accumulate in the climate system (mainly the global ocean)-- exactly as observed.

Instead atmospheric physics uses the fundamental equations (the radiative transfer equations) which determine absorption and emission of radiation by water vapor, CO2, methane, and other trace gases.

Anyway, do you agree that there is a major difference between the «simple physics» versions («CO2 acts like a giant blanket») and the more sophisticated radiative physics - based models used in the global climate models (for instance)?

Radiative Transfer Physics does not depend entirely on the simple absorbtivity of CO2, which by the way is effectively permanent in air when added by burning fossil fuels, compared to water which saturates and precipitates out depending on climate conditions, such as warming due the GHE, as a marginal shift in the dynamic equilibrium through feedbacks.

As to No. 1 (~ 1C from CO2 doubly with no feedbacks), I think it is ok as far as it goes based on radiative physics.

Lilewise, alarmists will probably place strong reliance on physics based models demonstrating radiative warming by CO2.

Radiative physics says doubling CO2 adds a lot more forcing to polar latitudes than the Milankovitch effect, but you demur on accepting that it is also important for the sea - ice and glacier balance and possibly that higher CO2 levels near 500 ppm could prevent the next Ice Age.

You can't be seriously suggesting that the radiative physics between atmospheric anthro CO2 and natural Co2 are substantially differenCO2 and natural Co2 are substantially differenCo2 are substantially different??

kuhnkat asks me: «You can't be seriously suggesting that the radiative physics between atmospheric anthro CO2 and natural Co2 are substantially differenCO2 and natural Co2 are substantially differenCo2 are substantially different??

Judith's presumption is that some climate scientists and greenie activists armed with evidence of the basic radiative physics of CO2 and the reality of it increasing in the atmosphere convinced susceptible politicians that there was a real danger.

Those arguments involve the radiative physics of planetary atmospheres, the effect of adding CO2, the complexities of the global oceanic and atmospheric circulation, and the chemistry of fuel combustion.

Based on this thread, my conceptual understanding is that basic physics is pretty well undisputed that double CO2 yields an increase in radiative forcing of 3.7 - W / m2.