Sentences with phrase «by backradiation»

One of those beautiful photos where a day's winter sun could not melt frost in shade by backradiation.

Knowing the time period and the mass of the missing ice we can calculate the energy provided by backradiation.

Generally Accepted Explanations for discrepancy: Greenhouse effect ADDS heat and radiation to surface by some magical mechanism explained vaguely as: backradiation; insulation; slowing of loss of heat by backradiation; or other other claptrapcrap ™.

I would add that Prof Claes Johnson has now proved that there can be no warming of the surface by backradiation, so the greenhouse effect is a non-event which you don't need to allow for.

Wind is not modulated by backradiation.

There are other processes like evaporative cooling and diffusion followed by convection which can not be affected by backradiation, and which will tend to compensate for any slowing of the radiation.

The most contentious is the amount of cooling reduction caused by backradiation.

Put back the direct heat from the Sun, which is thermal infrared, longwave infrared — where's the downwelling from «greenhouse gases by backradiation / blanketing from the upwelling of the heated Earth»?

Not exact matches

Re 9 wili — I know of a paper suggesting, as I recall, that enhanced «backradiation» (downward radiation reaching the surface emitted by the air / clouds) contributed more to Arctic amplification specifically in the cold part of the year (just to be clear, backradiation should generally increase with any warming (aside from greenhouse feedbacks) and more so with a warming due to an increase in the greenhouse effect (including feedbacks like water vapor and, if positive, clouds, though regional changes in water vapor and clouds can go against the global trend); otherwise it was always my understanding that the albedo feedback was key (while sea ice decreases so far have been more a summer phenomenon (when it would be warmer to begin with), the heat capacity of the sea prevents much temperature response, but there is a greater build up of heat from the albedo feedback, and this is released in the cold part of the year when ice forms later or would have formed or would have been thicker; the seasonal effect of reduced winter snow cover decreasing at those latitudes which still recieve sunlight in the winter would not be so delayed).

«the downwelling longwave infrared forcing that you claim does not exist >» Poor liar, I've never claimed that backradiation doesn't exist, proven by your inability to link to a comment where I said that.

It makes all the difference — they have excised beam heat from the Sun to create the «Greenhouse Effect», they are fraudulently using real measurements of heat from the Sun claiming these are from «backradiation / blanketing of upwelling heat by greenhouse gases».

If honest science was done, the «resolved» part would be confirmation that CO2 - backradiation - powered - warming is a bit player, immediately overwhelmed and absorbed by potent homeostatic feedback processes.

To hide all their, both versions, shenanigans of using the real direct radiant heat measurements for their «backradiation by greenhouse gases» claim, they have had to create the fiction that visible light from the Sun is the source of heat and what we feel as heat.

Because, all the real world measurements taken of downwelling longwave, thermal, infrared are now attributed as «from the atmosphere» and not from the Sun direct, beam, and therefore bounced back by these claimed greenhouse gases and so real rises in amount, as for example in the recent warming period we had from the Sun's activity, are fraudulently attributed to Greenhouse Effect backradiation.

Myrrh says the sun's IR is wrongly attributed to backradiation by greenhouse gasses.

With electromagnetic energy from the Sun it needed to push the idea of «shortwave heats land and oceans» because it first had to take out the direct heat from the Sun, thermal infrared, a.k.a. longwave infrared, a.k.a. heat, to establish its claimed «backradiation by greenhouse gases from trapping the upwelling thermal infrared from the heated Earth» and it didn't want any interference by the real world's direct heat from the Sun, thermal infrared, direct longwave infrared.

It has done this so that all measurements of heat from the atmosphere can be attributed to the fictional concept «backradiation by greenhouse gases».

Simple sleight of hand deceit to be able to claim that the «increase in greenhouse gases is causing this by «greenhouse gas» «trapping» and «backradiation», putting the blame mostly on Carbon Dioxide.

The Greenhouse Effect creates by another interesting sleight of hand the illusion of «backradiation of longwave infrared», by including real world measurements of the direct longwave infrared from the Sun, aka Heat energy, but which they have totally eliminated from their fictional world scenario.

I thought explaining how they have taken out the real heat from the Sun because they had to use its measurements for their «backradiation from greenhouse gases» would be the easiest to explain..., the arguments about the second law are interminable because few understand that physics well enough to counter the AGW tweaking of it by several sleights of hand.

The lowest levels of the atmosphere would still be warmed by (dry) convection, and backradiation from the atmosphere would allow the surface to retain more energy in storage than it would adjacent to the heat sink of space.

Thank you, Bevan, for the very clear analysis of the absurdity created by the impossible AGW fictional fisics of `'» shortwave in longwave out» and the thermal infrared beam from the Sun blocked by an unexplained invisible barrier greenhouse glass unable to get through to heat the Earth's surface», but, included in their upwelling and downwelling measurements from the atmosphere anyway, which they call «backradiation».

Pekka, to claim that the temperature effect of CO2 absorbing IR in the atmosphere is unmeasurable except in the atmosphere is a good way of glossing over the fact that the claimed warming phenomenon (backradiation or insulation or IR absorption) is: a. imprecisely described, and non-existent according to G&T b. untested in the laboratory — probably because it hasn't been precisely described c. very small according to the precisely measured radiative transfer data precisely modeled in Spectralcalc d. confounded by other variables in the real atmosphere

Well, to toss in two cents from a new voice, I want to say I am baffled by these disagreements concerning backradiation, downwelling, whether these exist, if there is or is not a greenhouse effect, etc..

Whether or not increased backradiation from an increased CO2 concentration causes the heat content (of a body of water) to increase, is determined by how much of that «energy in» flux gets converted into energy out flux in form of evaporation, etc..

The temperature gradient of the skin layer affected by GHG backradiation is just 0.002 K (according to RealClimate.org) at most, which is not enough of an induced heat change to be a determinant of ocean temperatures.

Lately you quote a paper by someone named Irvine, trying to show that all backradiation change is converted into evaporation (which his experiment clearly is unable to demonstrate).

Steve says: May 19, 2011 at 11:06 pm jae says: «The backradiation from the cold air can not HEAT the surface above the -18 C equivalent provided by the Sun, according to Second Law physics.»

Ira, explaining the 33K temp difference between surface and top of atmosphere in terms of LWIR backradiation AKA greenhouse gas effect is misleading; as it is already entirely explained by the adiabatic lapse rate.

Heat is STORED by molecules and that heat is released when backradiation is less than forward radiation.

The diagram is correct ONLY if the surface is maintained at 15 C by phenomenon other than some impossible backradiation magic.

The backradiation from the cold air can not HEAT the surface above the -18 C equivalent provided by the Sun, according to Second Law physics.

De Witt, are you saying «THS???» because you don't know it stands for tropical hot spot [which I can't believe] or because you don't get the connection between backradiation and a THS, which I understood to be the case because the Troposphere would warm faster than the surface since it is being heated by a warmer surface, to wit, the surface of the planet which is getting warmed by the aforesaid backradiation; and in addition to but not withstanding that the troposphere whould also rise which would be another aspect of the THS, with the final characteristic being that said THS would occur in the tropics where the warming effect of extra water would be most pronounced, also as a consequence of backradiation?