Sentences with phrase «from ghgs»

That said, we already have longer periods than 10 years, e.g. thirty years or a hundred years during which the increase in forcing from GHGs substantially exceeded the total increase from all other sources.

The upwelling IR is broadband radiation, so while some of it winds up getting blocked and returned from GHGs, other wavelengths escape fine.

But, it can warm the air close to the ground, if the air is cooler, and does do that if that very energy just bounces around locally in the air maintaining equilibrium and equipartition, and this is what normally happens (really it is thermalization and re-emission from the GHGs), in your room, on your patio, in a field, on the ocean, its just it can never raise the temperature greater than the local surface itself is.

Either of these GHGs will gain energy if they absorb IR from the ground (or from GHGs in the atmosphere), but then when they collide with other molecules (almost always N2 or O2) they will give away that extra energy until they are at the same average energy as the rest of the air.

If you're talking the last 30 years (a pretty good definition of recent), it's hard to deny that most, perhaps even all the warming is from GHGs.

Also, today soot, or black carbon, is a major driver of Arctic melt, which means we're getting melting beyond the warming temperatures from GHGs.

The strong drop of temperature with altitude requires cooling of the upper troposphere by emission of IR from GHGs.

What I am asking of the maintainers of this blog, is precisely to help sort out what is «exaggerated» and what is not, what is supported by the science and what is not, with regard to potential catastrophic effects, and especially with regard to the question of whether there in fact remains any plausible scenario in which such effects can be prevented, given the effects that we are already seeing from the GHGs we have already emitted.

Indeed, the effects of AGW that are very likely «locked in» now from the GHGs we have already emitted, will almost certainly be worse than even a very badly managed peak oil transition would cause.

The problem I have is whether the atmosphere is warm simply because of the absorption of solar energy (a combination of absorption of incoming solar radiation and absorption of reflected and radiated solar energy from the bottom up) and adiabatic lapse, or whether in addition back radiation from GHGs plays a significant role.

But the radiation that is leaving is coming in part from the GHGs, and also from clouds and also from the ground.

«As discussed in these comments, I believe my concerns and reservations are sufficiently important to warrant a serious review of the science by EPA before any attempt is made to reach conclusions on the subject of endangerment from GHGs.

We know that a persistent forcing 1 / 10th the size of that from GHGs can set off the melting of glaciers.

meter (Kiehl & Trenberth) whereas the TOTAL RF from GHGs in Forster & Ramaswamy in Solomon et al 2007:141) was only 2.66 in 2005.

Yes, the ocean is retaining 1/2 the excess heat from GHGs, and the SST's are rising at about 1/2 the rate as the land temperatures are.

A particular issue with AGC this is that the imbalance from GHGs is distributed fairly evenly over the Earth, but cloud albedo is far from distributed evenly.

DLR from GHGs does not get through.

But past climates are imperfect «analogs» for the modern situation because other conditions aside from GHGs were different (orbital configuration, ocean basin geometries, etc.).

The ocean surface will only warm up if the incoming energy gets past the evaporative layer (DLR from GHGs doesn't)

Extra DLR from GHGs could: a) increase the temperature of the skin layer - causing more evaporation and radiation from the skin layer OR b) reduce the amount of energy flowing into the skin layer from below.

According to the models, there must be some help from GHGs, but there is no measurable impact visible...

Ferdinand: According to the models, there must be some help from GHGs, but there is no measurable impact visible...

To support AGW you have to demonstrate net warming of the ocean bulk globally from increased DLR from GHGs alone.

It is only necessary for GHGs to warm the skin layer for this to happen; the energy from GHGs does not need to penetrate the mixed layer in order for the mixed layer to warm up.

The rate of temperature change now is a hundred times faster than the rise out of the last Ice Age, and it is not surprising because the forcing rate of change from GHGs alone is that much faster too.

Downwelling LWIR from GHGs would make your gadget less efficient as the DLR rose.

I'd like to add one small point here, most relevant to Isaac Held's data showing a significant effect expected from ghgs in the first half of the century.

The latitudinal shifting is the negative system response to ANY forcing whether from GHGs or otherwise but in reality mostly from solar and oceanic variability with that from CO2 not measurable.

Why didn't «backradiation» from the GHGs in the air melt these tiny crystals before the sun arrived?

They assume «positive feedbacks» from GHGs that trap heat, but understate the reflective and thus cooling effects of clouds.

But RF from GHGs is increasing and energy is accumulating in the climate system (OHC 1970 — present).

In short, radiative forcing from GHGs and volcanic aerosols explains a great deal of the land record with a residual that follows a natural cycle: AMO.

Absent the mechanisms available during deglacial climate change, and under sustained and increasing forcing from GHGs, it seems * very unlikely * that this will be the case.

The best current explanation is the forcing from GHGs such as CO2.

And, so correspondingly, the conclusion that half of the late 20th century warming was from GHGs is hardly likely to be supported once taking into account the above, especially since generally non-fudged temperature data has much less warming to account for in the first place.

But this is not equilibrium, because I have to keep removing energy from the cold parts (just like energy must continually be removed from the cold parts of the atmosphere (by radiation from GHGs)-RRB-.

The latter can be considered in terms of forcings and natural unforced variations.The major positive forcings were those from GHGs, black carbon aerosols, and solar irradiance (including its spectral components).

The non-CO2 GHGs have added 1.17 watts per square meter (44.5 % of total from all GHGs) of climate forcing from 1750 to 2000.

In reality, most GW doesn't come from GHGs and these hysterical attempts to purport imaginary cloud cooling is hiding equally imaginary high feedback CO2 - AGW, an artefact of the false «back radiation» idea, has seriously damaged science and many economies.

This is a clear indication that that it does not come principally from GHGs, whose re-emissions should coherently follow the surface temperature, but from the non-absorbent bulk constituents thermalized by the chaotic process of convection.

I will keep bring this up every month or two until 1) someone says they clearly see what I am talking about or 2) someone clearly explains how this radiation pressure created by these LW radiations, up from the ground, 1/2 down from GHGs does not cause a pressure which will expand the atmosphere and by thermodynamics fundamental equations will cool the atmosphere in exactly an equal amount.

Warming from CO2 has dropped to the bottom of my list of potential «Planet Killers» — although from a Gaian point of view, there are so many interacting challenges to the biosphere now, who knows what kinds of cascades could trigger some kind of abrupt warming or cooling event — maybe not stemming from GHGs.

-LSB-... W] hen we already have over 2 W / m2 from GHGs to account for it that you would want to remove somehow to replace with your unknown process.

So observation of change in the height of the tropopause turn out to be a lousy place to look for confirm that models to predict changes expected from GHGs.

It's not a «rational explanation» because it depends on «unicorns» to translate that supposed «over 2 W / m2 from GHGs» into increased heat flow into the ocean.

Does it matter that a person that is working on how energy is transferred from GHGs to water at the liquid / air interface doesn't?

But GCM - tuning exercises strongly suggest that external forcings from GHGs must be involved in producing the current warming trend.

Was this also a conspiracy of clouds and oceans or just the expected forcing change from GHGs that far exceeds any of the solar and volcanic trends that you seem to accept?

This formula allows them to claim watts of «forcing» from GHGs are nearly 3 times more effective at warming the surface than watts from the Sun, so the nonsense continues.

During the nighttime, the surface is still receiving energy from the GHGs.