Sentences with phrase «greenhouse effect works»

But if we disregard the tree - rings and other proxies, we only have the physical models of how the greenhouse effect works.

We have already seen in this marathon with the 2 N's that without convection the greenhouse effect would be much larger on Earth; that being the case, given that Mars has an atmosphere almost entirely composed of the greenhouse gas CO2 and no convection, why does it have equivalent Tave and Teff if the greenhouse effect works as Arthur Smith describes?

How a greenhouse works and how the Greenhouse Effect works are TWO DIFFERENT things.

While everyone else was enjoying a beverage, cookies, and conversation, Sherry had been off in the corner for about 30 minutes talking with the questioner, explaining basic principles of atmospheric science, how the greenhouse effect works, etc..

Also, since you agree with P&O's description of how the greenhouse effect works (i.e. downward long - wave radiation warms the lower atmosphere and the ground), will you retract statements like the following «-LSB-...]

Also, since you agree with P&O's description of how the greenhouse effect works (i.e. downward long - wave radiation warms the lower atmosphere and the ground), will you retract statements like the following «-LSB-...] I demonstrate that the down - welling radiation hypothesis divulged by the proponents of the anthropogenic global warming [is] incompatible with the laws of thermodynamics.»

Maybe next Unforced variations (or the one after that) I'll post an attempted summary of the fluid mechanical aspects of the atmosphere (or of planets and stars in general with a focus on Earth's atmosphere and also maybe the ocean)-- because there have been summaries of how the greenhouse effect works but not so many of fluid - mechanical aspects of climate and weather.

I don't see how your naive reasoning (and basic confusion about how the greenhouse effect works anyway) adds or changes anything in regards to that.

The greenhouse effect works like this: Energy arrives from the sun in the form of visible light and ultraviolet radiation.

Make up your own words, dishonestly claim I wrote them, and then claim that this means I don't understand «how the greenhouse effect works».

Apparently you think that is how the greenhouse effect works.

Quote: «We know how the greenhouse effect works, and we have evidence that climate sensitivity to increasing GHGs is significant.

We know how the greenhouse effect works, and we have evidence that climate sensitivity to increasing GHGs is significant.

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.

Nor is it how the greenhouse effect works.

Also, I am glad people want to discuss things, even things that are «well known» like how the greenhouse effect works.

Guest post by Willis Eschenbach There is a lot of misinformation floating around the web about the greenhouse effect works.

Steel shells, mirrors, blankets, they are all fine metaphors but I have always felt they failed at getting to the heart of how the greenhouse effect works i.e. letting light in at one frequency and rejecting it at others.

Let me put forward an alternative hypothesis as to how the greenhouse effect works.

The greenhouse effect works just like, you guessed it, a greenhouse!

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

And as an attack on the AGW orthodoxy it misses the target entirely — because it is based on another fundamental misunderstanding of how the greenhouse effect works.

I can not seriously believe that rational people can not understand how the greenhouse effect works any basic science readings will fix that issue up and you can avoid the whole climate change science go to a hard physics site.

But I do have experience of people who make a lot of fuss about the alleged unreliability of science on this subject but who, when confronted with a basic explanation of how the greenhouse effect works, will neither acknowledge it nor deny it.

Not accepting an account of how the greenhouse effect works is not the same thing as not understanding it.

That's how the greenhouse effect works, but the fact it has «greenhouse» in its name does not mean it works in the same way as a greenhouse works.

One of the fundamental questions for someone interested in the impact of doubled CO2 is exactly how (1) the greenhouse effect works; and (2) how the «enhanced» greenhouse effect works.

I think that it's reasonable to expect IPCC to provide a proper exposition of how the enhanced greenhouse effect works.

This greenhouse effect works in a vicious cycle.

If so, it follows, we should be able to show in other ways whether the greenhouse effect works or not.

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

There's also a cool animation about how the greenhouse effect works, which is great for a refresher course, or showing someone who doesn't quite understand how it all works.

Metaphors that use blankets to explaining how the greenhouse effect works, income and spending in your bank account to stand in for the carbon cycle, what the wobbles in the Earth's orbit look like if the planet was your head, or conceptualizing the geologic timescale by compressing it to a day, for instance, all serve useful pedagogic roles.

A recent paper by Sloan and Wolfendale (2013) provides an example where they derive a simple conceptual model of how the greenhouse effect works from first principles.

Although the greenhouse effect works somewhat differently from an actual greenhouse, the name stuck anyway.

The confidential report, «The Greenhouse Effect,» was authored by members of Shell's Greenhouse Effect Working Group and based on a 1986 study, though the document reveals Shell was commissioning «greenhouse effect» reports as early as 1981.

Not exact matches

The effect is similar to how an actual greenhouse works, thus the name.

Greenhouses work based on a physical principle called «the greenhouse effect.»

It remains too soon to tell exactly how this climate system will work under changed conditions and other environmental factors — such as whether the cooling effect of the soot generated by industry and burning forests outweighs the warming effect of greenhouse gases — which may play large roles.

For the lower - altitude fringes of the icy continent, and for the rest of the world (even Siberia and Greenland), the greenhouse effect still works as expected.

Working under the auspices of the National Science Foundation, the team spent two years evaluating more than 100 studies that addressed the various implications of climate engineering and their anticipated effects on greenhouse gases.

He worked with groundbreaking scientists like Broecker, James Hansen and the late Steve Schneider, just as the «greenhouse gas effect» was gaining scientific weight.

Working with university scientists and the U.S. Department of Energy, Exxon strove to be on the cutting edge of inquiry into what was then called 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.

But in the case of CO2, which is a rather sizable portion of the greenhouse effect, the temperatures would be cold enough to trigger the scenario raypierre discussed (in the work of Aiko Voigt; he also discusses this in his 2007 general circulation paper, and more recently was discussed in the Lacis et al 2010 paper in Science).

This lab activity covers: - Climate Change - The Greenhouse Gases - The Greenhouse Effect - Global Warming How do the Lab Stations work?

When asked to explain the greenhouse effect, he really didn't know anything about the physics of how it worked.

So humans» carbon dioxide greenhouse effect is a quarter of 0.013, works out to about 0.00325.

A theory I am working on is that a strong direct link only occurs in cold temperatures, where the greenhouse effect is greatest.

In the end, the answer to your question seems to be that the CO2 greenhouse effect, according to theory, works stronger in cold temperatures.