Not exact matches
While many basic aspects of physics can be included (conservation of mass, energy etc.), many need to be approximated for reasons of efficiency or resolutions (i.e. the equations of motion need estimates of sub-gridscale turbulent effects,
radiative transfer codes approximate the
line - by -
line calculations using band averaging), and still others are only known empirically (the formula for how fast clouds turn to rain for instance).
Line - by - line type radiative transfer calculations used to find a forcing for a certain fractional change in CO2 (e.g., the Myhre et al 1998 paper) can not be applied to conditions like Venus or ancient Ea
Line - by -
line type radiative transfer calculations used to find a forcing for a certain fractional change in CO2 (e.g., the Myhre et al 1998 paper) can not be applied to conditions like Venus or ancient Ea
line type
radiative transfer calculations used to find a forcing for a certain fractional change in CO2 (e.g., the Myhre et al 1998 paper) can not be applied to conditions like Venus or ancient Earth.
And, there is plenty of empirical data at every level: There is empirical data on the basic absorption
lines of the various atmospheric constituents, there is a wealth of empirical data backing up the basic equations of
radiative transfer that are applied in calculating the greenhouse effect in just the same way that engineers and scientists use these equations everyday in other
calculations, there is empirical spectra looking both up from the surface of the earth and down from satellites.
Can we believe
calculations from
line - by -
line radiative transfer codes for an atmosphere with doubled CO2?