Sentences with phrase «ghe from»

If the GHE from OCO exists, it must be a very weak force, indeed!

You get the real GHE from correct radiation physics, which is that thermal IR from the lower atmosphere blocks surface IR emission in GHG band centres, reducing total emissivity.

The fairly solid hypothesis of a slightly enhanced GHE from GHG emissions was / is being twisted into something more akin to a disaster flick in search of a disaster.

The problem with the IPCC is the magnitude of the direct ghe from co2 and the magnitude and sign of feedbacks.

When people understand the GHE from this greenhouse or car analogy and from such simple images, then it becomes very easy to understand that adding more GHGs to the atmosphere will increase the global warming.

Looking for ambiguous evidence of an enhanced GHE from space is a challenging proposition.

Not exact matches

Do you guys know that in ghe two games Maitland - Niles started as a CM for Arsenal he looked far far better than Xhaka.It's a shame pdople won't see it and will calk me deluded but Maitland Niles will be do good if he started weeXhaka's a player who'll only look good when we're dominating.It's a shame Maitland - Niles and Wilshere have to put up with this.People will» Maitland Niles is 18 and wasn't signed for # 35» while for Wilshere they'll say» He just came back from injury and Xhaka has more steel».

What makes this state so special, and can we explain the present natural GHE in the presence of negative feedbacks (consider starting from a state with no GHE)?

The atmosphere and surface might very well heat up from enhanced GHE, but as soon as water vapor feedback kicks in it will actually act as both a positive and a negative feedback.

If you want to see how the total GHE can be approximately calculated, see, for example, Kiehl and Trenberth 1997, from links here: http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/12/10/an-update-to-kiehl-and-trenberth-1997/ — Kiehl and Trenberth 1997: http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/spring04/atmo451b/pdf/RadiationBudget.pdf — see also the link for K

The calculations agree quite well with the observations for most of the objects in our solar system, except for Venus which is known to harbour a strong GHE and has a hotter surface than Mercury despite being about twice as far away from the sun.

However, I think, given some solar heating of the stratosphere, stratospheric cooling from an increased GHE can be enhanced, and that it could happen for a grey gas GHE as well — maybe not for the whole stratosphere, but for part of it.

So while, in the isothermal blackbody surface approximation, if the starting surface temperature is 288 K and we know the OLR is reduced from surface emission by 150 W / m2 via GHE, we know that removing all greenhouse agents will have a TOA forcing of -150 W / m2, (and some forcing at the tropopause, etc.) which will cool the surface temperature to about 255 K at equilibrium, absent non-Planck feedbacks.

The difference in radiant flux will be smaller between 222 K and 255 K, and larger between 288 K and 321 K, and it will take a greater GHE TOA forcing to reduce the effective radiating temperature (the temperature of a blackbody that would emit a radiative flux) at TOA from 288 K to 277 K as it would to reduce it from 277 K to 266 K, etc..

First, for changing just CO2 forcing (or CH4, etc, or for a non-GHE forcing, such as a change in incident solar radiation, volcanic aerosols, etc.), there will be other GHE radiative «forcings» (feedbacks, though in the context of measuring their radiative effect, they can be described as having radiative forcings of x W / m2 per change in surface T), such as water vapor feedback, LW cloud feedback, and also, because GHE depends on the vertical temperature distribution, the lapse rate feedback (this generally refers to the tropospheric lapse rate, though changes in the position of the tropopause and changes in the stratospheric temperature could also be considered lapse - rate feedbacks for forcing at TOA; forcing at the tropopause with stratospheric adjustment takes some of that into account; sensitivity to forcing at the tropopause with stratospheric adjustment will generally be different from sensitivity to forcing without stratospheric adjustment and both will generally be different from forcing at TOA before stratospheric adjustment; forcing at TOA after stratospehric adjustment is identical to forcing at the tropopause after stratospheric adjustment).

CO2 also becomes a more effective greenhouse gas at higher atmospheric pressures (even if super-imposed upon several more bars of a non-greenhouse gas like N2 would generate a much stronger GHE by increasing absorption away from line centers).

«The GHG «theory» based on CO2 is a thermodynamic impossibility» Yes, the climate alarmists peddle their pseudoscience claiming that the ghe works by transferring heat / thermal energy from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface of the earth, more heat / thermal energy than is transferred by the Sun.

There are degrees of everyone's positions here from those who think the IPCC is wrong because it is much too conservative through those who think the IPCC got it perfectly right to those who think the arctic sea ice has recovered because the record low level is now three years old through those who believe the GHE violates the laws of thermodynamics.

According to the GHE the radiated energy from TOA would fall because of the» trapped» heat.

So we have empirical evidence that one of the «signatures» (or should that be «footprints») of the «GHE» can not in reality (ignoring for a moment efforts to estimate temperatures from wind speeds, kind of like estimating a person's net worth from the fabric used to construct their clothing) be observed.

Even though human CO2 emissions rose from 6 GtC / yr to 10 GtC / yr during that span, the GHE radiative forcing attributed to CO2 for 1992 - 2014 was about 0 W m - 2.

I do not deny the facts (increased CO2 from FF, the GHE of CO2).

If you consider that the Earth is also about 2 / 3rds cloud covered and any CO2 or other GHG absorption would not matter because the clouds would be absorbing the energy anyway, over 90 % of the GHE is from water vapor and / or clouds and less than 10 % is from CO2 and other GHGs.

All that the gravito - thermal GHE does is redistribute the heat from the only energy SOURCE the Sun, more to the surface (the 33K G - T) and less to the upper troposphere (the even larger NEGATIVE -LRB--35 C) ANTI-GREENHOUSE EFFECT) from the center of mass of the atmosphere at 5.1 km to the top of the troposphere.

The heat capacity of the ocean is 1,000 x greater than the atmosphere, ocean is over 70 % of earth's surface and earth is warmed by radiation from sun and GHE.

There is no net atmospheric radiative GHE raising surface temperatures from 255K by 33K.

And secondly, there's nothing «magical» about the gravito - thermal GHE since it can easily be mathematically PROVEN from the 1st Law, Newton's 2nd Law, Ideal Gas Law, and Poisson Relation (which is also derived from the 1st law and IGL).

The answer to the second question is certainly: No, it would not negate GHE, only reduce it a bit, because a very large part of the effect comes from the upper troposphere, where CO2 dominates over H2O as GHG.

It is kind of hard to reconcile a increase of Co2 from 360 ppm to 390 ppm over 16 years with both the observed zero temperature increase and GHE theory.

I do in places amplify my conclusions with additional statements, such as explicitly accepting three other datasets in a sence Dr. Curry apparently hadn't considered, and rejecting the uses of any other IPCC product than what I state later — only the model runs, and only to establish «What - if» there were no GHE as a secondary confirmation of what we know from our premises, the data, and strict inference.)

However if the forcing is from the GHE, then the forcing is coming from the troposphere.

I am not «denying» that a) there is a GHE which slows down outgoing LW radiation (OLR) b) that CO2 and H2O are GHGs c) that human activity generates CO2 (primarily from fossil fuels) d) that atmospheric CO2 has risen since Mauna Loa measurements started e) that globally and annually land and sea surface temperature has risen since the modern record started

The only thing that is relevant to the GHE is the outgoing radiation budget, which is the only way the Earth loses the heat it picks up from the Sun (with an extremely modest addition from all other sources).

I make precisely as much money from granting agencies for shooting down Jelbring's absurd paper as I do from the Big Oil companies for stating that the preponderance of evidence suggests that the very real GHG - GHE is not a catastrophic threat under any reasonable scenario for the economic and technological development of the world for the rest of the 21st century.

It goes from being the great, noble cause that will replace the GHE and prove that it is all part of the nasty CAGW - IPCC conspiracy and was never true at all to being a possibly important mechanism that helps establish the GHE.

It just indicates that there is no question that the GHE exists and is real, because you can photograph it in action from orbit.

This clashes with your other apparent belief that Hansen «back radiation» and the GHE is preventing temperatures from going «massively negative» — filling the legendary» 33K» void.

They do NOT generate that energy within the lazer from nothing which is what the GHE tries to get.

rgbatduke: For one thing, the physics of the GHE is fairly clear, and predicts roughly a degree to a degree and a half absolute warming with a doubling from 300 to 600 ppm, where we have already reached 400 ppm.

The GHE is not about storing energy in the atmosphere, it's about atmosphere stopping the free radiation of heat from the surface to space.

If I'm within say, one degree of Gavin's prediction, I'll expect a grovelling apology from GHE supporters who claim that there is any science needed to predict a completely useless number a whole month in advance.

The observational data they are working from as posted has NO observational GHE.

Looking for changes to the components that transfer energy from the Earth's surface to the atmosphere always shows up as a change to the GHE and hence a change in the Earth's climate.

And, because those being brainwashed with ideal gas descriptions with no teaching on the differences between ideal gas and real gases which have real properties of weight, volume and attraction, which have been given different names because they are different from each other, what we also have is the inability of those pushing the GHE to see the absurdities created by extrapolating from their ideal gas..

Instead of looking at the GHE and assuming it is a constant 33 ºC, I have applied the monthly blackbody temperature of the Earth to the actual temperature of the Earth and from that have the monthly blackbody temperature of the Earth.

Since I have discarded the forcing model because it is incapable of explaining the GHE of the Earth over a 12 month period, I had to find a model that could explain both the current behavior of the GHE and the one 20,000 years ago and the one 50 million years ago (and the snowball Earth 570 million years ago, more importantly how to recover from and snowball Earth).

Most of the GHE is the rise in surface temperature from reduced surface emissivity.

But don't take to much notice of me as I also believe that Advection i.e. the kind of horizontal air movements that follow isobaric surfaces and therefore are predominantly horizontal) have got more of a Green House Effect (GHE) than does a radiation circuit, of say 324 W / m ² originally removed from the surface, and then returned via Green House Gases (GHGs)-- which, by the way, show no sign of having warmed at all (no hot spot) But even so, when somehow the same 324 W / m ² are delivered back to the surface for absorption it is supposed to be getting warmer.

I won't discuss the stratospheric cooling now, but rather try to place recent events (including floods in Niger), which involve the hydrological cycle and atmospheric circulation, into the framework from my previous post «A simple recipe for GHE `.

Just guessing here, but I think the above response in the comments for the RC article by Minnett discusses where Rob Painting thinks Aaron Lewis is misunderstanding the skin layer and how the enhanced GHE slows heat loss from the oceans, which, obviously, results in increased OHC.