Sentences with phrase «ghe warming»

Or put another way, if there is so much water vapor around (3 % vs only 390ppm for CO2), and more GHGs means more warming, why does the GHE stop at 33C instead of continuing until all the water vapor absorbs a photon OR asked another way, who says that all the water vapor caused by the added CO2 will absorb a photon to cause more GHE warming?

Then consider that whenever the number of photons does decrease (every day after the peak at noon) that the number of GHE interactions MUST also decrease, and that the number of unused GHGs (in the GHE process) MUST increase, thus establishing that there is AN EXCESS of GHGs over those used in the GHE process, and therefore ALL of the GHGs generated (either by man as CO2, or as WV by feedback) do NOT necessarily have to be in use to create more GHE warming.

(This doesn't include any solar - heating (albedo, etc.) feedbacks, which is necessary for a direct comparison; the GHE warming of about 33 K is only the effect of the atmopheric LW optical thickness, and thus doesn't include any feedbacks on solar heating)

Big Lie — CO2 is a greenhouse gas (true), GHE warms the atmosphere (true), the earth has warmed over the last «n» years (true), if we keep putting CO2 into the atmosphere it will warm radically and threaten our existence (really?).

Not exact matches

If you are modelling the GHE using a single grey body absorber that is not wavelength dependent, then you have warming throughout the whole atmosphere.

What I should have said is that the stratosphere will cool — whether it gets cooler than the surface or tropopause or remains warmer (remember this is the case where we started with zero GHE and had some solar heating within the atmosphere) depends on specifics.

Here I will try to present a conceptual and comprehensive picture of GHE, explaining both the warming in the lower part of the atmosphere as well as the cooling aloft, and where only the most central features are included.

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.

So our attitudes to global warming, GHE or whatever you call it, are not predicated by intelligence of the capacity to understand, but our capacity to refuse to do so and to rationalise this refusal.

We can write down a simple recipe for the GHE, but it is indeed challenging to reconcile a presence of a negative feedback with our observations, or explain the current observed global warming in any other terms.

«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.

I'll also point out that the fundamental piece in the theory of anthropogenic global warming is simply the theory of the greenhouse effect (GHE).

That's right, a negative feedback for CO2 warming (its small part of the GHE) is provided by CO2 itself.

Judith, how do you reconcile a belief in the physics of the GHE with a belief that adding CO2 to the atmosphere could be accompanied by a «haitus in warming?»

Thus even if the satellite data showed say nearly 0.1 degC warming between 1979 to about 1996/7 (which is not statistically significant) then one would expect to see less than this amount of warming in the land based thermometer record if the warming is due to the GHE.

One of the problems is that if the land is warming faster and to a greater extent than the atmosphere, then the warming pattern is not consistent with the GHE and there must be some other explanation for the land warming.

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.

Couple that with the limited growth potential of CO2 concentrations and growing biological response (which likely lags concentration growth), and it doesn't even seem plausible that warming will be a net cost on a meaningful time scale (hey anything is possible — maybe there are temporary climate regimes where even mild ghe produces worse weather which we just haven't experienced yet — eg a portion of the - PDO phase).

I understand that GHE acolytes are confused about the difference between cooling, warming, and heating, so I can try to explain the difference, if you like.

You honestly don't think that the implication of the «Global warming has stopped» doesn't imply that GHE theory is invalid?

So I don't see how you can accept the existence of the GHE but dispute that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will cause warming.

Yet I would like to humbly point to the fact, that I just managed to not just falsify the GHE theory, but also to explain why is as warm as it is..

Even if they follow up their remarks with something that might be true — ``... and besides, the GHG - based GHE is saturated, the feedbacks are actually negative, solar - induced variations in albedo are just as important, and if you would stop adjusting the bloody temperature record to show ever more warming and look at the actual data, you'd find that it doesn't support your conclusions or prior predictions» you've already lost most listeners way back there with «magic».

The GHE results in more radiation warming the earth's surface.

But this is a thought experiment, and Jelbring himself establishes true equilibrium after a long time as a feature of the system in question, because he wishes to assert that gases will be warmer at the bottom without any external thermal driving, in particular the heating at the bottom and cooling at the top associated with the Sun and the GHE.

If nitrogen only is enough to cause an atmosphere to warm without any RHT, then convective heat transfer is part of the total GHE and not a reduction in the GHE.

RKS: there is a GHE because by reducing surface emissivity, GHGs increase the impedance for the transfer to the atmosphere and space of the 160 W / m ^ 2 average solar warming of the surface.

http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/43659.html «Dr. Spencer's essay «Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still» (July 23, 2011), written to support the greenhouse gas effect (GHE) the science behind man - made global warming has sparked increased criticism since publication.

If a (luke --RRB- warmer tries to answer the question, he or she will soon realise — by reasoning alone — that the GHE as advertised by the pro-cAGW brigade can not work.

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.

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.

Take, for example, the widespread statements by many «skeptics» that they don't doubt the basic physics of the GHE and that aCO2 warms the climat, yet that there has been a «pause» in «global warming» despite continued emissions (and atmospheric concentration) of aCO2.

But if «GHE» is interpreted to mean «increased surface warming», then it is equally a factoid to assert that the GHE of CO2 is not saturated.

Also, please don't forget that Judith «doesn't listen to» anyone who doubts the GHE, and that ACO2 is, to at least some extent, warming the climate.

The immediate consequence of this is that there is no positive feedback, needed for the other part of the Hansenkoistic fraud, the claim that all lapse rate warming is due to the GHE.

The GHE is the temperature increase needed to overcome higher thermal impedance plus some atmospheric warming.

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.

There have been some misunderstanding regarding the enhanced warming in the upper troposphere — mistakenly taken as being inconsistent with the climate models, or taken as the «finger print» of GHE, rather than as a plausible consequence predicted for an enhanced GHE due to the perturbation of the hydrological cycle (the «finger print» - misconception assumes that the models are perfect).

So the only GHE is an increased occurrence of rising warm air?

2) Something unknown is causing the warming that mirrors the GHE.

Doesn't it make more sense that the nightly reduction in the number of available photons (both incoming and converted to IR) results in fewer GHE reactions and hence it cools AND by implication the Arrhenius / IPCC conclusion that more GHGs means more warming is just not justified?

Shouldn; t Arrhenius have said (obviously) that «more added energy photons means more warming» Which is obvious since it is the suns photons & Earths rotation that increases and decreases the number of photons which changes the temperature & GHE daily?

So Gavin, you are claiming that in the GHE when a photon comes in it sits around in the air until man releases CO2 which results in warming which results in more water vapor which THEN absorbs the energy photon to create feedback?

Why are the temperatures in areas which have the highest amount of greenhouse gases at any given time (tropics) never much above 30 C (probably evaporation but does that counter the warming of the GHE?)

The world doesn't need a GHE to be maintained warm (I'm rounding up the numbers):