Sentences with phrase «back radiative heating»

Not exact matches

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.

The heat from this radiative forcing then goes back down, through the atmospheric CO2 and water vapor, through the clouds, and down to the surface where it has sex with liquid water.

A fog bank is an exception but generally the cloud will be far above the surface and the sensible heat released upon condensation now has an easier radiative path out to space and greenhouse gases between the cloud and the surface then retard the downwelling FIR from getting back to the surface!

If it fails to lose its heat it will rise to the radiative layer where it will eventually cool and fall back to earth.

If heat is coming out of the ocean in el Niño years, doesn't it seem obvious that part of that heat coming out will transmit back to space, lowering the radiative imbalance?

The atmospheric heating and cooling rates are then passed back to the atmosphere structure module that calculates how much the surface and atmospheric temperatures would change during the 30 - minute times step given the radiative heating and cooling rates.

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!

If look look back over my comments on this thread, you will note that I repeatedly state that radiative gases can slow the cooling of land surface and by intercepting surface IR they can heat gases in the lower troposphere.

So it's a heat capacity issue and not a radiative effect from «back - radiation» issue is your answer.

GHGs direct some of the upward radiative heat flux back down towards the surface, which means that when GHG concentrations are increased other heat fluxs (e.g. convection) must increase to compensate.

The greenhouse effect heats the earth because greenhouse gases absorb outgoing radiative energy and re-emit some of it back towards earth.

I get upset when I see «The greenhouse effect heats the earth because greenhouse gases absorb outgoing radiative energy and re-emit some of it back towards earth.»

D Cotton June 15, 2013 at 6:38 am The whole of the pseudo physics of greenhouse effects and assumed heating of the surface by back radiation (or «radiative forcing») is trying to utilise the Stefan - Boltzmann equation which only relates to bodies in a vacuum losing all their energy by radiation without any conduction or evaporative cooling.

The interest was two-fold: practically, Elsasser had provided a way for forecasters to quickly calculate radiative cooling or heating in specific situations where temperature and humidity were known: this was to be done by a graphic «calculator» printed on the back cover of the original book.

A real greenhouse primarily restricts heat escape by preventing convection while the «greenhouse effect» heats the Earth because «greenhouse gases» (GHG) absorb outgoing radiative energy and re-emit some of it back towards Earth.