Sentences with phrase «of radiative greenhouse effect»
Again, if there were something to measure, we would be measuring it and be well on our way to establishing the «Laws of Radiative Greenhouse Effect».
https://climateofsophistry.com/ Not exact matches
By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified
The effects of other well - mixed greenhouse gases can be accurately translated into radiative forcings.
... The Earth's atmospheric methane concentration has increased by about 150 % since 1750, and it accounts for 20 % of the total radiative forcing from all of the long - lived and globally mixed greenhouse gases (these gases don't include water vapor which is by far the largest component of the greenhouse effect).
Four and a half billion years after its birth, the shrouded planet is much too hot to support the presence of liquid water on its surface because of its dense carbon dioxide atmosphere and sulfuric acid clouds, which retain too much radiative heat from the Sun through a runaway greenhouse effect.
So, from my lack of understanding here, I think the question revolves around «significance», of the total mechanisms in relation to potential to alter radiative forcing and enhancing the greenhouse effect.
By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified
The fact that there is a natural greenhouse effect (that the atmosphere restricts the passage of long wave (LW) radiation from the Earth's surface to space) is easily deducible from i) the mean temperature of the surface (around 15ºC) and ii) knowing that the planet is roughly in radiative equilibrium.
There are another couple of links between iv) therefore England was warmer back then, and v) therefore increasing greenhouse gases have no radiative effect.
That gives you some idea of the basic nature of infrared effects of greenhouse gases, but it still won't address some of the subtler points concerning radiative transfer and the effect of band saturation — except insofar as band saturation is used in the explanation of why the radiative effect of CO2 is roughly logarithmic.
I had been preparing comments to explain — how LW radiative forcing (greenhouse effect) works, why forcing from CO2 is approximately linearly proportional to CO2 at sufficiently small amounts of CO2 and approximately logarithmically proportional to CO2 within a range of larger amounts, and then how the climate responds to forcings, but that got very very long and so I'm going to hold off on that.
Kasting had one very primitive go at a radiative - convective study of the effect of clouds on runaway greenhouse, which suggested that clouds might prevent the whole ocean from going aloft.
The effects of other well - mixed greenhouse gases can be accurately translated into radiative forcings.
you're missing the point — radiative heat transfer is the smallest part of the climate system — it just works better for their pet theory — called the greenhouse effect — that was proven wrong almost a century ago!
«But no radiative data is used» It must be incorporated in his model, he states «The all - sky climatological greenhouse effect (the difference of the all - sky surface upward flux and absorbed solar flux) at this surface is equal to the reflected solar radiation.»
RealOldOne2 states that the greenhouse effect is real — he states that the increase radiative emission from GHGs results in the surface emitting less energy than it would if it were radiating straight to space as a result of sentient molecules.
Instead, Miskolczi appears to have become obsessed in trying to explain the greenhouse effect in terms of century - old outdated Schuster - Schwarzschild analytic formulations derived for a spectrally gray, homogenous, radiative equilibrium atmosphere.
Between 1990 and 2015, the bulletin says, there was a 37 percent increase in radiative forcing — the warming effect on the climate — because of long - lived greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide from industrial, agricultural and domestic activities.
The radiative Greenhouse Effect is continually overridden as a result of the size of the constant interlinked changes in both the solar energy input to the oceans and the oceanic heat inputs to the atmosphere.
The radiative effects of human emissions of ozone - depleting substances and greenhouse gases have driven marked atmospheric cooling at stratospheric altitudes.
For this reason, we consider here the effects on the stratosphere of not only emissions of ozone - depleting substances (ODSs), but also of emissions of greenhouse gases, natural phenomena (e.g., solar variability and volcanic eruptions), and chemical, radiative, and dynamical sratosphere / troposphere coupling
Then you say: «Your last item [Cooling of the Stratosphere consistent with operation of Greenhouse Effect] is just enhanced radiative cooling due to increased CO2.
I think the reason is that there is confusion between the so called radiative greenhouse effect from so called greenhouse gases in the air as proposed by AGW supporters and the longstanding and well accepted effect of pressure creating the Adiabatic Lapse Rate.
However, the second law is not violated by the greenhouse effect, of course, since, during the radiative exchange, in both directions the net energy flows from the warmth to the cold.»
The latest research suggests that it amounts to about 4 percent of the «radiative forcing,» which is the fancy term scientists use to talk about the overall warming effects of greenhouse gases.
Radiative - covective models put the surface albedo, gas composition and their infrared absorption together with the solar irradiation into account, this gives a first guess of the top of troposphere, surface temperature and greenhouse effect (= surface temperature — radiation temperature).
The radiative effects of greenhouse gases seem fairly obvious and have been since I read the first IPCC report all those years ago.
For instance the earth's global ocean already has an albedo close to zero so greenhouse gases are limited there and because GHGs modus operandi is restricting radiative cooling and the ocean is still free to cool evaporatively there is no first order significant effect of greenhouse gases over a liquid ocean.
(For clarity regarding my reference to evidence «confirmed by satellite», in that particular case I was referring to measurements of radiative flux that confirm the greenhouse effect).
This unique feature of the Antarctic atmosphere has been shown to result in a negative greenhouse effect and a negative instantaneous radiative forcing at the top of the atmosphere (RFTOA: INST), when carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations are increased, and it has been suggested that this effect might play some role in te recent cooling trends observed over East Antarctica.
Arctic is the only part of the world today that is still warming, no thanks to any radiative forcing or the greenhouse effect.
The bottom of the atmosphere is warmer than the average of the atmosphere for reasons which are not due to a «radiative greenhouse effect», not the least of which reason that that greenhouse effect doesn't exist and violates the laws of thermodynamics.
This causes a radiative forcing that leads to an enhancement of the greenhouse effect, the so - called enhanced greenhouse effect.
Willis» steel greenhouse in vacuum really is the best representation of the climate science radiative greenhouse effect.
There is no amount of sophistry that can get around this extremely basic and fundamental natural law of our universe, and is precisely why a Perpetuum Mobile is impossible in this universe, and also precisely why heat can not pile up, and precisely why a «radiative greenhouse effect» is also impossible in this universe.
That's the topic of my more recent paper and the above linked article, and that's what debunks any radiative greenhouse effect.
The «steel greenhouse» concept for demonstrating the radiative greenhouse effect has been debunked many times on this blog (the least reason of which its advocates attempt to conserve temperature instead of energy!)
First, whether or not the MWP or LIA were global in extent has nothing to do with AGW, which is based upon the known radiative effect of greenhouse gases and the amounts we are pumping into the atmosphere.
Climate science, as based on its radiative greenhouse effect and its «heat pile up» postulate, is founded on an entirely irrational and non-existent premise, as we see the result of for example in the last post.
The following diagram is how climate science thinks of heat flow and thermodynamics, and all others who subscribe to «steel greenhouse» ideas and the climate science radiative greenhouse effect:
... once I had one of them tell me that the radiative greenhouse effect was proved by cavitation off of a nuclear submarine propeller... be aware that this is what they will do, how low they will go.
Chief, you write «Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate.»
What is significant for the implications of climate «science» is the hypothesis of radiative equilibrium and the model used to describe the «greenhouse effect».
Carbon dioxide is one of the greenhouse gases that enhances radiative forcing and contributes to global warming, causing the average surface temperature of the Earth to rise in response, which the vast majority of climate scientists agree will cause major ** adverse effects **.
Andrew Lacis wrote: (3) Water vapor and clouds account for about 75 % the strength of the terrestrial greenhouse effect, but are feedback effects that require sustained radiative forcing to maintain their atmospheric distribution.
Our understanding of things like the greenhouse effect and the radiative properties of CO2 are observable properties of the atmosphere and CO2 that do not depend upon computer models.
This is similar to the error they make when they claim that greenhouse gases can produce temperature increases 3 - 5 times that of the direct radiative effects of doubling CO2 (through the action of non-linear feedbacks), but deny that small changes in insolation can produce effects that are much larger than can predicted from the original forcing.
Instead, the aim of our Science paper was to illustrate as clearly and as simply as possible the basic operating principles of the terrestrial greenhouse effect in terms of the sustaining radiative forcing that is provided by the non-condensing greenhouse gases, which is further augmented by the feedback response of water vapor and clouds.
Radiative forcing of climate by trace gases is commonly referred to as the «greenhouse effect.»
A companion study led by one of the co-authors quantifies that CO2 is responsible for 80 per cent of the radiative forcing that sustains the greenhouse effect.