Sentences with phrase «if radiative gases»

Not exact matches

That's why the «radiative forcing» concept works — it doesn't matter if the initial push is from greenhouse gases or the sun.

If we knew ocean heat uptake as well as we know atmospheric temperature change, then we could pin down fairly well the radiative imbalance at the top of the atmosphere, which would give us a fair indication of how much warming is «in the pipeline» given current greenhouse gas concentrations.

That's why the «radiative forcing» concept works — it doesn't matter if the initial push is from greenhouse gases or the sun.

As far as I know, if the only physical mechanism under consideration is the radiative cooling of the planet's surface (which was heated by shortwave solar radiation and reradiated at longer wavelengths in the infrared) via radiative transport, additional gas of any kind can only result in a higher equilibrium temperature.

If you are testing for radiative absorption, then the type of gas matters.

A sharp change in lapse rate will (absent sharp changes in optical thickness per unit distance, which occurs at TOA and at the surface even in wavelength bands dominated by well - mixed gases) tend to differ from radiative equilibrium — the inflection point may correspond to a maximum deviation from radiative equilibrium if the radiative equilibrium profile has some intermediate lapse rate in that vicinity.

Even if adjustments are required (not likely), this would have no real impact on the well quantified relationship between radiative forcing from greenhouse gases and increasing global temperatures.

3) Under the assumption of radiative equilibrium, it can be shown that the surface temperature of a planet would slightly and non linearily increase with the concentration of IR active gases (primarily H2O) if and only if radiation was the only mean for energy transfer.

Also, if one uses a simple grey earth model one finds that not taking into account the distribution of radiative forcing of changes in solar irradiance overestimates its strength by a factor of 2 - 3 compared to greenhouse gas forcing.

The GTP metric requires knowledge of the same parameters as the GWP metric (radiative efficiency and lifetimes), but in addition, the response times for the climate system must be known, in particular if the lifetime of component x is very different from the lifetime of the reference gas.

At basic level, It falls out of the equations for radiative transfer if you increase a greenhouse gas.

Finally, if I were to emphasize any single point in the above commentary, it would be that in addition to an analysis of trends, a detailed knowledge of the radiative physics of greenhouse gases and their consequences is needed for proper interpretation.

Seriously — if this heat pile up and CO2 radiative trapping of heat really worked AND it is essential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions then Engineers — who are actually smart unlike climate scientists — would have easily built a «Greenhouse gas coal fired power station.

If there were no greenhouse gases, it would be less clear whether convection or radiation governed in the troposphere, since there would be a lot less resistance to radiative transport.

Thermal radiative equilibrium for his black boundaries is isothermal, and if the gas has a different thermal equilibrium then the system perpetually violates the second law with a radiative - gravitaional «heat fountain» that runs without work being done, precisely as my silver wire example does.

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.

Then my jaw dropped when you said, «If it were otherwise, the gas would have no temperature, as this is a measure of radiative activity.»

If it were otherwise, the gas would have no temperature, as this is a measure of radiative activity.

In other words, if the LTE assumption holds, the radiative properties of the atmospheric gases in a given «layer» can increase or decrease the average energy content of that layer relative to the others.

If the troposphere contained radiative gases but was held static, it would still exhibit a small lapse rate.

If one inserts a thin and stationary horizontal adiabatic wall (well... ok, «insulated wall») at any height L within a gas column at equilibrium (no net diffusive, radiative or convective heat flows within this column) then the pressure on both sides of the wall integrated over its surface match the weight of the column above.

«in an isotropic non GHG world, the net would be zero, as the mean conduction flux would equalize, but in our earth it is still nearly zero» if the atmosphere were isothermal at the same temperature as the surface then exactly the downwelling radiation absorbed by the surface would be equal to the radiation of th surface absorbed by the air (or rather by its trace gases) and both numbers would be (1 - 2E3 (t (nu)-RRB--RRB- pi B (nu, T) where t (nu) is the optical thickness, B the Planck function, nu the optical frequency and T the temperature; as the flow from the air absorbed by the surface is equal to the flow from the surface absorbed by the air, the radiative heat transfer is zero between surface and air.

However, if one converts the total effects of all greenhouse gases, aerosols, etc. into an equivalent increase in CO2 concentration (by reference to their effective radiative forcing RF, that from a doubling of CO2 being F2xCO2), then what you suggest would be pretty much in line with the generic definition of TCR in Section 10.8.1 of AR5 WGI:

A change in the LW radiative forcing of atmospheric gases will, if applied to the same climate, result in some disequilibrium.

Thus, if a gas has a high (positive) radiative forcing but also a short lifetime, it will have a large GWP on a 20 - year scale but a small one on a 100 - year scale.

But if climate really is as insensitive as he claims it to be, the climate forcing producing the ice ages must have been huge, much larger than the radiative forcing from orbital changes, surface albedo, and greenhouse gases.