Sentences with phrase «back radiation heating»

No back radiation heating the other up as you claim back radiation heats the earth.

* * * I've had a poke around for some references which may help: SkS How CO2 heats the ocean: http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-Increasing-Carbon-Dioxide-Heats-The-Ocean.html SoD Does back radiation heat the ocean?

The starting point is «Does back radiation heat the ocean part 1».

Not exact matches

Modifying the vegetation cover alters the surface properties — such as the amount of heat dissipated by water evaporation and the level of radiation reflected back into space — which has a knock - on effect on local surface temperature.

They also reflect infrared radiation, more commonly known as heat, back toward us.

The collapse creates so much heat and pressure that the star forges the heaviest elements known and blasts them and most of its outer layers back out into space, along with blinding radiation.

Storm clouds play a big role in keeping the planet cool by reflecting heat back into space — but they're not as effective farther north or south, where there's less solar radiation anyway.

Material falling from the exploded star onto the compact companion would have been heated and blasted back into space in two narrow jets, along with a beam of radiation.

The sulphur in the lower atmosphere below 15kms is reflecting sunlight back into space but the black soot also a component in the ABC's is heating when bombarded with solar radiation and warming the atmosphere up to 15kms dramatically affecting cloud formation and monsoon / drought cycles.

When greenhouse gases increase, more longwave radiation is directed back at the ocean surface, which warms the cool - skin layer, lowers the thermal gradient, and consequently reduces the rate of heat loss.

The molecular structure of CO2 is such that it is «tuned» to the wavelengths of infrared (heat) radiation emitted by the Earth's surface back into space, in particular to the 15 micrometer band.

############################## 3) What is the mechanism by which infrared radiation trapped by CO2 in the atmosphere is turned into heat and finds its way back to sea level?

The current in the lamp will drop slightly, wich means that white hot tungsten wire is heated up still a few degrees by «back radiation» from a quite cooler place and because that metal wire is a NTC - resistor or «Ein Kalt - leiter».

Hypothesis A — Because the atmospheric radiation is completely absorbed in the first few microns it will cause evaporation of the surface layer, which takes away the energy from the back radiation as latent heat into the atmosphere.

Q3: What is the mechanism by which infrared radiation trapped by CO2 in the atmosphere is turned into heat and finds its way back to sea level?

1) Greenhouse gasses absorb infrared radiation in the atmosphere and re-emit much of it back toward the surface, thus warming the planet (less heat escapes; Fourier, 1824).

Finally, going back to Bryan's remark, he is certainly correct that the physical heat flow generated at ridges etc is tiny with respect to the flux of SW radiation.

This incoming shortwave heating is balanced by ocean heat loss through back radiation (41 %), evaporative heat loss (53 %), and heat loss by conduction and convection (6 %).

Biomass carbon oxidises back to CO2, releasing the same heat of combustion that generated it utilising SW radiation.

Re # 36: «This incoming shortwave is balanced by * net * ocean heat loss through back radiation (41 %)» The key word * net * should have been used.

where: Q is the change of energy expressed in Joules, Q (s) is incoming shortwave, Q (b) is the «net» back radiation loss, Q (e) is the net loss from evaporation, and Q (h) is the heat loss by conduction and convection

The increasing greenhouse effect leads to a radiation imbalance: we absorb more heat from the sun than we emit back into space.

For example, increased well - mixed CO2 and water vapor decrease the rate of heat loss through back radiation.

Thus it is very difficult for the ocean to transmit heat by long wave radiation into the atmosphere; the greenhouse gases just kick it back, notably water vapor whose concentration is proportional to the air temperature.

Much of the radiation from the atmospheric gases, also in the infrared range, is transmitted back to the ocean, reducing the net long wave radiation heat loss of the ocean.

What I'm thinking is that the primary way that the energy captured by CO2 gets dissipated is not radiation, partly back to the surface, but primarily upwards convention as the kinetic transfer between gas molecules moves the heat rapidly throughout the atmosphere.

CO2 traps heat According to radiative physics and decades of laboratory measurements, increased CO2 in the atmosphere is expected / predicted to absorb more infrared radiation as it escapes back out to space.

** BTW eadler, you wrote to Matt G that 324 w / m ^ 2 of back radiation (T & F say 333), heats the surface.

Because ice reflects some heat radiation back out into space, when it melts it exposes darker ocean which then absorbs that radiation, leading to more warming.

Thus variations in Antarctica's climate are governed by changes in heat transport versus the steady radiation of heat back to space.

Due to the earth's spherical shape and orbital effects, annual incoming solar radiation at the poles is so low, polar regions always radiate more heat back to space than is ever absorbed locally.

Throughout the rising process, heat in the form of KE is progressively being removed from the exchange of radiation and throughout the subsequent falling process heat in the form of KE is progressively being added back to the exchange of radiation.

James Hansen was not advanced enough in his understanding of thermodynamics to realise why this heat creep happens, so he wrongly guessed that back radiation was supplying the needed energy.

Over land, you have a surface energy balance that includes downwelling IR, upwelling IR (Stefan Boltzmann), downwelling solar radiation minus what is reflected back from the surface, latent heat flux and sensible heat flux (these are turbulent fluxes associated with exchange with the atmosphere), and conductive flux from the ground (below the surface).

This will reflect radiation back into the coffee, thereby further reducing the net radiated heat loss.

The Met Office state «The «greenhouse effect» is the way the atmosphere traps some of the energy we receive from the Sun (infrared radiation or heat, ultraviolet and visible light) and stops it being transmitted back out into space».

just like the diffusive case, and there is no «build up» from «back radiation» or «back diffusion» that will make the source hotter, and this simply and directly violates everything we know about heat flow and thermodynamics.

The inflowing Pacific Waters spread across half the Arctic Ocean with a heat equivalent equal to, and up to twice as great, as possible heat estimated from CO2 back - radiation.

And that after some amount of time, the molecule does not surrender the heat as an IR photon that can travel either up or down of in any arbitrary direction, some of the time producing «back radiation»?

Anyone who seen a Realclimate thread weave endlessly for weeks on end simply because the team absolutely insist that back radiation does heat the surface, even though a more careful use of words would have closed the inquiry off very quickly, may understand where I'm coming from.

As evident in the figures the near surface air temperatures are actually warmer over the Arctic Ocean (by over 1 °C in large areas) when the sea ice absorbs solar radiation and transfers some of this energy as sensible heat back into the atmosphere.

CO2 radiation at high above is cold (depends on altitudes, latitudes, and longitudes, say from 0degreeC to -60 degreeC) can not radiate net heat back to the Earth which is at a higher temperature.

IF ongoing planetary heating from CO2 back - radiation is continuing but being hidden a-la-Trenberth in the oceans, then this ocean heat would be visible as an increase in sea level rise.

The big difference between this scenario is that the radiation from the lamp AND the radiation from the glass originate in materials at significantly higher temperatures than the gases and hence heat IS transferring from HOT to COLD unlike the fanciful «back radiative greenhouse effect» which truly defies the laws of Physics relying instead on pixie dust magic!

A fraction of that heat returns to the surface (back radiation) and makes it a bit warmer.

The GHGs sends some of the long - wave radiation back to the surface, heating it up some more, adding to the heating.

These temperatures in the base of the troposphere slow down and even stop the surface cooling in the early pre-dawn hours, regardless of radiation losses which are balanced by «heat creep» diffusion and conduction back into the surface.

Spencer's article lends support to the discredited idea that cold CO2 [carbon dioxide] high in the atmosphere back - radiates to Earth's warmer surface, heating it more and causing it to radiate to the atmosphere and space with higher intensity than it would without cold CO2 back - radiation.

They really prove the concept of heating via «back radiation»?

This is basically back to classical meteorology before radiation madness struck: sun heats surface, surface looses heat through the atmosphere to space.