Sentences with phrase «greenhouse effect described»

You also don't find the atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect described in any theoretical physics textbook.

Not exact matches

The surveys asked 84,086 respondents to gauge the level of threat they attributed to climate change (some of the surveys used different words to describe the phenomenon, such as global warming and the greenhouse effect).

Our understanding of how certain atmospheric gases trap heat dates back almost 200 years to 1824 when Joseph Fourier described what we know as the greenhouse effect.

The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861, and Arrhenius 1896, and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system.

Where confusion arises, it is usually the glasshouse that is improperly described, rather than the atmospheric greenhouse effect.

All that has just been described on the duration of fossil fuel reserves indicates that, given the longevity of coal, it would be the source of energy to be used in the future when other fossil fuels are depleted, a fact that would aggravate the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere.

The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861, and Arrhenius 1896, and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system.

I don't want to see this thread get hung up on geoengineering but the device Hank describes offers some nice opportunities for thinking about infrared radiative transfer and the greenhouse effect, so let's all give it a go.

In Kiehl and Trenberth 1997, they find a 155 W / m2 total greenhouse effect for approximately present - day Earth conditions (among the approximations: surface is a perfect (isothermal **) blackbody, and the use a representative 1 - dimensional atmospheric column (instead of seperate calculations for each location over the globe at each time over the course of a period of time sufficient to describe a climatic state — but note righthand side of p. 200, just past halfway down the column)... a few other things).

«The term known as the «enhanced greenhouse effect» describes a situation where the atmosphere's becomes less transparent to infra - red light (reduced optical depth)»

Enhanced greenhouse effect The term known as the «enhanced greenhouse effect» describes a situation where the atmosphere's becomes less transparent to infra - red light (reducedincreased optical depth), and that the heat loss must take place at higher levels.

John Broder has a story above the fold in Sunday's Times describing growing concerns of Defense Department planners over the potential destabilizing effect of the building global greenhouse effect.

The mechanism which they claim to have identified is actually the opposite of what Lindzen described, where he claimed that clouds would increase as the result of the greenhouse effect and their albedo effect would hold down temperatures, but in the tropics the clouds that Spencer et al were dealing with presumably become fewer in number.

I have a 1st year undergrad earth science text used in US which describes Greenhouse Gas (GHG) effect and accepts its reality!

All the while this was happening there were countless posts on blogs such as WUWT claiming they were being victimised as deniers when they were not denying the basic dogma, many posts full of angst at this choice of word to describe those arguing about the science of AGW by CAGWs, and many puzzled CAGWs wondering what the heck was going on as they had used that word only to describe those denying the Greenhouse Effect Dogma.

I ask my first year students (highly selective university) each semester if they can describe how the greenhouse effect works — just the basics.

The First Assessment Report, which would have been the basis for the 1992 UNFCCC had concluded that «The unequivocal detection of the enhanced greenhouse effect from observations is not likely for a decade or more», making it clear that in the early 1990s, there could have been no consensus as Stewart describes it.

I say this and provide the image to add to the realisation that what Humanity is observing is NOT due to «greenhouse» (the effect is still not described in a valid manner and even the materials involved do not present «greenhouse behavior» let alone produce a «greenhouse effect») but is the end play to the same (now ~ 20000 to ~ 15000 year old) warming cycle.

Climate sensitivity describes the effect that increases in CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) have on the global near - surface air temperature.

Until we reintroduce the actual physical world back into The Greenhouse Effect we won't see the extent of the fictional world it's describing.

Earth's Greenhouse Effect is described as all about radiant effects: Wiki: «The greenhouse effect is a process by which thermal radiation from a planetary surface is absorbed by atmospheric greenhouse gases, and is re-radiated in all dGreenhouse Effect is described as all about radiant effects: Wiki: «The greenhouse effect is a process by which thermal radiation from a planetary surface is absorbed by atmospheric greenhouse gases, and is re-radiated in all direcEffect is described as all about radiant effects: Wiki: «The greenhouse effect is a process by which thermal radiation from a planetary surface is absorbed by atmospheric greenhouse gases, and is re-radiated in all dgreenhouse effect is a process by which thermal radiation from a planetary surface is absorbed by atmospheric greenhouse gases, and is re-radiated in all direceffect is a process by which thermal radiation from a planetary surface is absorbed by atmospheric greenhouse gases, and is re-radiated in all dgreenhouse gases, and is re-radiated in all directions.

What is significant for the implications of climate «science» is the hypothesis of radiative equilibrium and the model used to describe the «greenhouse effect».

Next, he describes how some of this energy is trapped in Earth's atmosphere by the greenhouse effect, which warms our planet.

While what I have described is a bit simplistic, it gives the gist of why the CO2 emissions are significant: not only is CO2 a greenhouse gas, but its effect causes other significant changes to take place, such as increased uptake of water vapour into the atmosphere.

There is NOT possible for a «greenhouse effect», as the «greenhouse theory» describes, to exist whilst Temperature is NOT even a valid indicator of supposed UNNATURAL «Climate Change».

There is NOT possible a «greenhouse effect» as the «greenhouse theory» describes when is noticed the REAL behavior of those materials involved, and grandiose production of opinion as either Novel or Movie will NOT prevent natural Climate Change, and this is ALL that is evident as progressing still.

The page includes links to the EPA's inventory of greenhouse gas emissions, which contains emissions data from individual industrial facilities as well as the multiagency Climate Change Indicators report, which describes trends related to the causes and effects of climate change.

At issue is how Exxon [NYSE: XOM] handled early warnings about the risks of the greenhouse effect that its own researchers presented to the company's top management starting nearly 40 years ago, as described in recent reporting by InsideClimate News and others.

There are, in effect, no «greenhouse gases» within the atmosphere as such behavior is described by the «greenhouse theory» There is also that numerous other sources exist, you can look at http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/h2ovibr.html http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/vibrat.html http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/index.html http://www.ipr.res.in/~othdiag/fir/stability/node12.html for more information.

Other honourable mentions in the Carbon Brief survey of most influential climate papers go to Norman Phillips, whose 1956 paper described the first general circulation model, William Nordhaus's 1991 paperon the economics of the greenhouse effect, and a paper by Camile Parmesan and Gary Yohe in 2003, considered by many to provide the first formal attribution of climate change impacts on animal and plant species.

I really think that you should consider that what you are actually describing is the greenhouse effect.

Dr. Roy Spencer's article Global Warming and Nature's Thermostat here, describes the role of precipitation systems in controlling the greenhouse effect.

I think you are drawing from the analogy of billiard balls describing how the greenhouse effect works.

In this regard, here is the webpage of a retired atmospheric science professor who is sort of stickler for describing the greenhouse effect correctly: http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/Bad/BadGreenhouse.html He is a bit militant in what the correct pedagogy is for my taste, but I think he does have a valid point that thinking about it in the wrong way can lead people astray.

Ken has shown above how the models do not describe water vapor in the upper troposphere — which is where the greenhouse effect is strongest.

But I also feel that I could use a better way to describe the greenhouse effect to people who are less scientifically literate, which I would argue is the harder problem.

Model crashes for large positive forcings are sometimes described as a runaway greenhouse, but they probably are caused by one of the many parametrizations in complex global models going outside its range of validity, not by a runaway greenhouse effect.

When someone comes up with an experimental method that predictably and reproducibly can mathematically describe the cause / effect mechanism between greenhouse gases and CO2 then I'll believe global warming is real.

This is what AGWScienceFiction has done — it has built an imaginary Earth on the imaginary ideal gas for its AGW Greenhouse Effect and because it does not teach the difference between ideal and real gas the general population have a deliberately corrupted concept of the world around us, they do not know their arguments come from a fictional fisics so they can not see how physically impossible the world they describe.

The only policy that has had a significant effect on greenhouse gas emissions ─ the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target, which led to an investment boom in wind power ─ has been scrapped, with a senior minister privately describing it as «too successful».

Until now you couldn't describe how that greenhouse effect works or more specifically how backradiation is supposed to warm (or increase heat content of) the surface.

You managed to describe the greenhouse effect and yet your list of problems demonstrate that you don't seem to understand the mechanism (and other mechanisms too).

Where confusion arises, it is usually the glasshouse that is improperly described, rather than the atmospheric greenhouse effect.

«The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861, and Arrhenius 1896, and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system.

Interestingly though it is not older than the discovery of the atmospheric greenhouse effect, which was first described by Fourier in 1824.

Another widely seen use of the phrase «greenhouse effect» was in a 1937 textbook (repeated in later editions), wrongly describing «the so - called «greenhouse effect» of the Earth's atmosphere» as an effect «analogous to that of a pane of glass.»

If I were choosing a model to describe with as much quantitative fidelity as possible the greenhouse effect in the earth's atmosphere, then the model I would choose would be a state - of - the - art convective - radiative transfer code using the actual composition and empirical absorption / emission lines for the atmospheric constituents.

1) The fundamental «greenhouse effect» basic physics that Tyndall describes as quoted above from a century ago — some gases, including water vapor and carbon dioxide, are transparent in the human visual range, but are not transparent to a range of infrared.

According to the IPCC, estimated «radiative forcing» of greenhouse gases (the term it uses to describe the expected heating effect) increased by 43 % after 2005.

Needless to say the greenhouse effect does not require a perpetual motion machine of any kind, but as we will see the terminology used to describe the greenhouse effect can mislead the willing.