Sentences with phrase «radiative gases do»

Radiative gases do this in our atmosphere.

Not exact matches

That's why the «radiative forcing» concept works — it doesn't matter if the initial push is from greenhouse gases or the sun.

The mechanism for reducing anthropogenic global warming, initiated through radiative forcing of greenhouse gases, is to stop emissions and reduce their concentration in the atmosphere to levels which do not stimulate carbon feedbacks.

... The Earth's atmospheric methane concentration has increased by about 150 % since 1750, and it accounts for 20 % of the total radiative forcing from all of the long - lived and globally mixed greenhouse gases (these gases don't include water vapor which is by far the largest component of the greenhouse effect).

The radiative efficiency of CH4 vs. CO2 has nothing to do with the respective lifetimes of the gases.

And Bob, don't forget to explain just how these natural factors would negate the known and demonstrated radiative physics of greenhouse gases.

That's why the «radiative forcing» concept works — it doesn't matter if the initial push is from greenhouse gases or the sun.

The radiative transfer problem is best addressed numerically with a sufficient number of vertical layers to resolve the atmospheric temperature and absorber distributions and with a sufficient number of spectral intervals to resolve the spectral dependence of the contributing gases — as is being done in most GCMs.

This goes beyond the translation into radiative forcing equivalents, and attempts to factor in that a long - lived greenhouse gas will be around to do things to the climate longer than a short lived one.

Yup, but by definition as we add greenhouse gasses, we depart from equilibrium, so the processes do not cancel and there is a net flow of energy from radiative to kinetic.

The empirical measurement of radiative forcings from greenhouse gases does not prove forcings?

All other things do not remain equal with increasing concentrations of radiative gases.

«The IPCC has failed to convincingly explain the pause in terms of external radiative forcing from greenhouse gases...» — That's because the tropospheric pause has nothing to do with GH gases, which never «pause» in their action, bit rather, the pause has everything to do with natural variability in the rate of energy flow from ocean to atmosphere.

The radiative characteristics of greenhouse gases do not alter surface temperature but instead affect atmospheric volume and circulation.

Due to the important role of ozone in driving temperature changes in the stratosphere as well as radiative forcing of surface climate, several different groups have provided databases characterizing the time - varying concentrations of this key gas that can be used to force global climate change simulations (particularly for those models that do not calculate ozone from photochemical principles).

RCP4.5 aims to achieve stable radiative forcing in 2100; however, this does not imply that greenhouse gas emissions, greenhouse gas concentrations, or the climate system are stable.

Therefore, our results confirm that positive radiative forcings (e.g., from human - caused increases in greenhouse gas concentrations) are necessary in order for the Earth to have warmed as much as it did over the 20th century.

Maybe you don't know much about the sum of radiative forcings, or findings from paleoclimate, that allow climatologists to calculate that human emissions of greenhouse gases are responsible for 100 + % of recent warming, but that doesn't mean nobody does.

Furthermore, the CMIP3 archive does not include diagnostics of radiative forcing from aerosols, ozone, or greenhouse gases other than carbon dioxide.

That is why established science does not list the radiative features of constituent gases as one of the factors that influence the equilibrium temperature of planets with atmospheres.

First, whether or not the MWP or LIA were global in extent has nothing to do with AGW, which is based upon the known radiative effect of greenhouse gases and the amounts we are pumping into the atmosphere.

I didn't take specific heat of the two gasses into account, thinking that the radiative effect would be dominant.

I don't have a handy set of equations to estimate the combined methane plus co2 plus minor gases radiative forcing.

Also interesting that they don't understand that water vapour feedback, no matter what it's magnitude, applies equally to anything that causes a change in radiative forcing for the planet — more GH gases, Albedo change, any GCR induced changes in clouds.

Thermal radiative equilibrium for his black boundaries is isothermal, and if the gas has a different thermal equilibrium then the system perpetually violates the second law with a radiative - gravitaional «heat fountain» that runs without work being done, precisely as my silver wire example does.

We will also assume that the gas does not absorb or emit at the frequencies associated with these temps (i.e. we can ignore radiative transfer).

I believe I was quite clear in pointing out that this data did not exist for an atmosphere without radiative gases.

Konrad; Could you please give me a direct yes or no answer to the following question — Do you believe that strong vertical tropospheric convective circulation would continue without radiative gases?

David, could I please have a yes or no answer to the following — Do you believe that strong vertical tropospheric convective circulation would continue without radiative gases?

N2 and O2 are generally called non radiative gases in climate science, but they do absorb and emit IR.

Show me why thermal conductivity of gases can be so low and yet they can somehow have this radiative forcing effect — especially when it is claimed Nitrogen, Oxygen and Argon do not contribute to the «greenhouse effect».

Could you please give me a direct yes or no answer to the following question — Do you believe that strong vertical tropospheric convective circulation would continue without radiative gases?

Joel could you please give me a direct yes or no answer to the following question — Do you believe that strong vertical tropospheric convective circulation would continue without radiative gases?

Radiative gases cool our atmosphere at all concentrations above 0.0 ppm, with water vapour doing the bulk of the work.

Do you believe radiative gases are critical for tropospheric convective circulation or not?

They did not properly model the critical role of radiative gases in tropospheric convective circulation.

Yes, inert gases do absorb incident Solar radiation in the UV and visible spectra, so the atmosphere warms to radiative balance, and the temperature at the base of the atmosphere determines (or «supports») the surface temperature.

-- does it assume that tropospheric convective circulation would continue without radiative gases?

Thus with GHGs in an atmosphere the circulation can slow down because more of its job of maintaining top of atmosphere energy balance is done for it by those radiative gases.

I've done more involved regressions taking insolation, ice coverage and other radiative gasses into account and gotten even closer results, which gives me confidence that K & H aren't just making it all up.

Moreover, since gas molecules don't absorb IR across the spectrum but only on molecular lines, cutting off the radiative heat flow would not be nearly as effective as simply silvering the walls and pulling a vacuum in the void between the walls.

Even for an increase in CO2 by a factor of 10, the temperature increase does not exceed 2.5 ° K.» Even the IPCC acknowledges radiative gases» inverse logarithmic influence on temperature.

I don't see anywhere in his CV where he has advanced degrees in radiative physics that would lend credence to his being a «greenhouse gas expert.»

Involving the adiabatic lapse rate is an effort to reconcile radiative physics with the Ideal Gas Law but taking the effective radiating height as the appropriate «surface» does not work for reasons that I will discuss in more detail in Parts B and C of this article.

What greenhouse gases do is reduce the outgoing longwave radiation (at fixed T) and the radiative forcing is a measure of that net irradiance change, in this case defined at the tropopause.

«An analysis should start with the budget as it is known and explained by radiative transfer, and perturb the gases to see what they do.»

So, I was simply saying that the generally - accepted projections for AGW are that positive feedbacks amplify the radiative effects due to greenhouse gases alone but do not lead to an actual «runaway» instability.

You had to elaborate your answer by saying that gases with non polar molecule symmetry do not absorb or emit energy within the temperature parameters with any application in engineering, e.g. O2, N2, H2..., while gases with polar molecule symmetries are significant absorbers and emitters of radiative energy, e.g. H2O, CO2, SO3... for engineering applications, depending of their density, temperature and pressure in a given environment.

[Fifth, the short purple line is with radiative forcing (i.e greenhouse gas concentrations) frozen at 2000 levels, which, of course, didn't happen.]

Assuming the simulated variability and model response to radiative forcing are realistic, the results of the present study demonstrate that the combination of greenhouse gas forcing, sulfate aerosols, and internal variability could have produced the early 20th century warming, although to do so would take an unusually large realization of internal variability.