Sentences with phrase «radiative properties of»

Since the radiative properties of the CO2 molecule are simpler than those for the H20 molecule, we infer that the line - by - line codes and RRTM should perform accurate calculations for an atmosphere with doubled CO2.

Neutrino, your distinction between a flux and power is correct but the issue [for me] is that the flux is an averaged amount; the problem with that in determining the radiative properties of the Earth have been dealt with in this paper:

But it is what happens, the earth surface does warm if one considers ONLY radiative properties of CO2 and NO other effects, and the laws of thermodynamics are intact.

Radiative properties of atmospheric gases, thus, seem to be minor players in atmospheric thermodynamics.

Zhang, Y. - C., W.B. Rossow, and P.W. Stackhouse, Jr., 2006: Comparison of different global information sources used in surface radiative flux calculation: Radiative properties of the near - surface atmosphere.

Zhang, Y. - C., W.B. Rossow, and P.W. Stackhouse, Jr., 2007: Comparison of different global information sources used in surface radiative flux calculation: Radiative properties of the surface.

Tyndall was the first to measure the radiative properties of different gases, and showed that water vapor and CO2 were the chief atmospheric greenhouse gases.)

Yang, P., Q. Feng, G. Hong, G.W. Kattawar, W.J. Wiscombe, M.I. Mishchenko, O. Dubovik, I. Laszlo, and I.N. Sokolik, 2007: Modeling of the scattering and radiative properties of nonspherical dust - like aerosols.

Liu, L., and M.I. Mishchenko, 2007: Scattering and radiative properties of complex soot and soot - containing aggregate particles.

Global Warming Potential (GWP)- An index, based upon radiative properties of well - mixed heat - trapping gases (greenhouse gases), measuring the radiative forcing of a unit mass of a given well - mixed greenhouse gas in the present - day atmosphere integrated over a chosen time horizon, relative to that of carbon dioxide.

My understanding was that central physical dynamic of concern both in the paleoclimatic record and wrt to the theory of AGW is the radiative properties of GHGs in the upper atmosphere.

Sensitivity of the soil dust cycle to radiative properties of soil dust aerosols.

He thought that this connection might occur via the effect of cosmic ray induced ionization on aerosol and cloud condensation nuclei and thus on the radiative properties of clouds.

I think those two questions could go a long way towards defining the impact and interaction of the radiative properties of CO2 when assessed in the real atmosphere (as opposed to in a test tube).

One can't arbitrarily choose feedbacks for water vapor, ice / albedo, clouds, etc., without looking to see how these phenomena are actually behaving — e.g., what are the radiative properties of water vapor, how is relative humidity changing, what is happening to low cloud cover, high cloud cover, and the high / low cloud ratios, etc.?.

For the love of all that is rationally logical, what does CO2's tendency to come out of solution as T goes up have to do with the radiative properties of the molecule in its gaseous phase in the atmosphere?!

Changing the radiative properties of the atmosphere — which is what increasing carbon dioxide does — must alter the character of weather events as well as the climate.

But those haven't changed — the radiative properties of CO2 have not changed because what was said in an email.

In January 1859, John Tyndall began studying the radiative properties of gases.

This reversed in 1976/77 — and the renewed warming sparked renewed interest in the work on radiative properties of gases and the measurements of Charles Keeling.

In other words, if the LTE assumption holds, the radiative properties of the atmospheric gases in a given «layer» can increase or decrease the average energy content of that layer relative to the others.

If it were possible to switch off the radiative properties of the atmosphere the land surface would suffer far more dramatic diurnal temperature variations but the troposphere would heat dramatically.

Is there any one here denying that smoking kills — or indeed that there is an effect from greenhouse gases on radiative properties of the atmosphere?

CO2 gets brought into the discussion because our understanding of the radiative properties of CO2 and the effect of its presence in the atmosphere means there is an a priori expectation that an increase in the CO2 levels of the kind we have seen should lead to warming.

Re: «Is there any one here denying that smoking kills — or indeed that there is an effect from greenhouse gases on radiative properties of the atmosphere?»

The radiative properties of all gases have been measured with extreme precision in experiments for a long time.

Our understanding of things like the greenhouse effect and the radiative properties of CO2 are observable properties of the atmosphere and CO2 that do not depend upon computer models.

There is a risk that small changes in the radiative properties of the atmosphere, in terrestrial hydrology and in ocean chemistry can trigger large responses in the Earth system.

The leap from the known radiative properties of CO2 to the atmospheric warming effect from increasing human CO2 emissions is giant.

The known radiative properties of CO2 and the large amount of research into climate sensitivity give a very strong theoretical basis.

Radiative properties of entities involved are the same in both cases, only their distribution differs.

Either a century of basic physics and chemistry studying the radiative properties of greenhouse gases would have to be proven wrong, or the natural cycle would have to be unbelievably complex to prevent such dramatic anthropogenic emissions from warming the planet.

There is a small effect from the radiative properties of the «GHG's», but they simply act as a sort of hybrid thermal / optical delay line which delays the flow of any single photon through the Sun / Earth / Atmosphere / Universe system by causing it to make multiple «bounces» through the system: surface / GHG / surface / GHG / escape to the energy free void of space.

I am well aware of the radiative properties of greenhouse gases.

So «alarmism» is a governmentally funded conspiracy to raise taxes and increase governmental control over private individuals... As opposed to an unpleasant possibility arising from scientific investigation into the radiative properties of CO2.

The report then considers (a) how the radiative properties of the atmosphere can be modified as a result, possibly leading to climate change, and (b) how the ozone layer could be modified, leading to changes in ultraviolet radiation reaching the Earth's surface.

For that, researchers say, one turns to physics and the radiative properties of carbon dioxide, which Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius painstakingly calculated — longhand — just before the turn of the 19th century.

The radiative properties of gray bodies will trump any spatiotemporal layer you put in the mix.

The radiative properties of CO2 are not controversial.

In addition the measurement is non-trivial, because as Mosh has tirelessly pointed out, the act of spectroscopically measuring thermal radiation is dependent on a model of the radiative properties of the atmosphere.

This is the additional concentration of CO2 that would have approximately the same effect on the radiative properties of the atmosphere - and thus the same direct effect on climate - as the concentrations shown of those GHGs.

Thermal radiation from O2 and N2 isn't even worth mentioning in the context of discussing the radiative properties of the atmosphere.

The very pretty thermographs prove that the sensor is not affectedby the local walls — sensor colour is cool -(although I am certain Mr. Watts did not normalise the radiative properties of the sensor and surface — wrecking the accuracy of this reading — e.g. a glossy surface can reflect the surrounding temperature and not the surface temp of the unit).

The very pretty thermographs prove that the sensor is not affected by the local walls — sensor colour is cool -(although I am certain Mr. Watts did not normalise the radiative properties of the sensor and surface — wrecking the accuracy of this reading — e.g. a glossy surface can reflect the surrounding temperature and not the surface temp of the unit).

That we are substantially changing the radiative properties of the atmosphere is not open to sensible dispute.

The remainder of Gavin's comment makes no sense at all, as I did not argue anything about «radiative properties of CO2» nor draw any conclusions from Naomi Oreske's op - ed piece.

Mr. IAT isn't actually interested in the radiative properties of CO2.

Given that, the argument that «in the absence of further information we should do nothing», taken to mean «do nothing to the economy» rather than «do nothing to the radiative properties of the atmosphere», is clearly irrational.

We also know that there must be positive feedbacks in order for Earth to be at its current temperature — you wouldn't get 33 degrees of warming from just the intrinsic radiative properties of the greenhouse gasses.

The radiative properties of CO2 and CH4 are completely independent of how society chooses to deal with that information.