Sentences with phrase «toa ir»

Based on point # 2, a higher GHG concentration would make the TOA IR emission look less like the surface, which is exactly what we see!

ERL ~ 8 km based on temp lapse rate and observed TOA IR frequency; tropopause at equator ~ 17 km, lower at poles.

According to CERES data TOA IR or longwave radiation from the TOA to space is increasing.

Not exact matches

What I'm saying is that TOA, as far as radiative energy is concerned, for CO2 or other IR absorbing gas, is effectively the altitude where the chance that a photon will be absorbed, and emitted back in a direction that will lead it to being absorbed again by a molecule in the atmosphere, becomes negligible.

But the the radiation emitted in space is again exactly the same, and so the «photosphere» (TOA defined by IR optical depth around one), what I understand being the «skin», is the same.

1) Can the IR radiated by CO2 to the surface of the ocean that is captured as latent heat and transferred to the TOA via evaporation, be released at different wavelengths??

An immediate effect of added CO2 is a reduction in outgoing IR at TOA.

-- 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

You could falsify the science by going to the TOA measuring outgoing IR.

A secondary issue is that bolometers on satellites show the CO2 15 micron band is depleted at TOA and imagine this is because of absorption of surface IR in those wavelengths by GHG absorption.

The new models assumed TOA DOWN emissivity = 1 and black body IR from the earth's surface and the lower atmosphere.

In reality TOA DOWN emissivity = 0 because there can not be direct thermalisation of absorbed IR.

I'm sure you've seen diagrams like this showing the IR spectrum radiating to space at the TOA.

The physics could be wrong, but the evidence for the GHE itself is IMO absolutely clear (visible in TOA and BOA IR spectra) and most scientifically competent CAGW skeptics don't really argue about this.

The second plot shows the spatial correlation between the TOA outgoing IR radiation and the temperature 2m above the surface.

Increasing greenhouse gases cause a top of the atmosphere (TOA) imbalance in energy, which can only be rebalanced (preserving the first law of thermodynamics) by the climate warming, and radiating enough additional IR to balance what energy is coming in.

A rider to this is that TOA reduction of CO2 IR is self - absorbed thermal emission from dry, cold upper air so no proof of CO2 - AGW.

So the atmosphere must be opaque to thermal IR radiation to produce an effective temperature at the TOA different from the ground one.

Following up on what Phil said, to find the TOA for IR from CO2, we just consider the CO2.

Here raising the TOA (ie raising CO2 concentrations) would not lead to a decrease in temperature (ie would not decrease IR outputs).

In other words, the TOA for CO2 for IR radiation will have raised 0.8 km.