Sentences with phrase «more backradiation»

Do these numbers change in response to more backradiation?

It's a valid question to ask you: «Does more backradiation cause more wind?»

Not exact matches

But if something causes heat to be transferred from the ocean surface into its deeps more rapidly than usual, ocean surface temperatures could rise more slowly, not rise at all, or even fall despite the increased backradiation.

Re 9 wili — I know of a paper suggesting, as I recall, that enhanced «backradiation» (downward radiation reaching the surface emitted by the air / clouds) contributed more to Arctic amplification specifically in the cold part of the year (just to be clear, backradiation should generally increase with any warming (aside from greenhouse feedbacks) and more so with a warming due to an increase in the greenhouse effect (including feedbacks like water vapor and, if positive, clouds, though regional changes in water vapor and clouds can go against the global trend); otherwise it was always my understanding that the albedo feedback was key (while sea ice decreases so far have been more a summer phenomenon (when it would be warmer to begin with), the heat capacity of the sea prevents much temperature response, but there is a greater build up of heat from the albedo feedback, and this is released in the cold part of the year when ice forms later or would have formed or would have been thicker; the seasonal effect of reduced winter snow cover decreasing at those latitudes which still recieve sunlight in the winter would not be so delayed).

Because, if the real beam heat from the Sun is re-instated into the energy budget of the faked fisics Greenhouse Effect, then the Sun goes back to being a major player and «backradiation from the greenhouse gases» will be much more difficult to use in the scam.

The lowest levels of the atmosphere would still be warmed by (dry) convection, and backradiation from the atmosphere would allow the surface to retain more energy in storage than it would adjacent to the heat sink of space.

The 1st is the usual «backradiation» one and the 2nd is because the atmosphere traps and reduces outgoing radiation transmission then the surface temperature must increase to emit more radiation to compensate.

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.

This above thread convinced me even more that backradiation does not further heat the planet.

The 2008 K&T cartoon gives a NET upward radiation flux from the surface of 33w / m2 with a downward adjustment to water vapour to 76w / m2 and conduction to 16w / m2 but the point holds; that point is more net heat is leaving the surface through methods other than radiation, particularly water; that to me means 2 things; water is a dominant mover of heat compared to CO2 and the sun's 168/166 w / m2 is a far more dominant heater than CO2 backradiation.

You say «But the greenhouse effect according to climate «science» is not the insulation of a blanket or a reduction in the rate of cooling, but a positive addition of heat (33C or more) because of «backradiation».

But the greenhouse effect according to climate «science» is not the insulation of a blanket or a reduction in the rate of cooling, but a positive addition of heat (33C or more) because of «backradiation».