Furthermore, this framework embeds more sophisticated explanations than traditional
purely radiative models and incorporates effects from feedback processes through dT / dz, response in Z T254K, and the albedo A.
I think that the sensitivity / feedback description is a remain of the early 1D
purely radiative models.
Konrad: It has long been understood that convection cools the surface... and that adding convection to
a purely radiative model of the atmosphere reduces the greenhouse effect.
Not exact matches
But almost universally, when they try to explain it, they all use the
purely radiative approach, which is incorrect, misleading, contrary to observation, and results in a variety of inconsistencies when people try to plug real atmospheric physics into a bad
model
[*] You had said: «is based
purely on observational evidence, with no dependence on any climate
model simulations... to obtain a direct measure of the overall climate response or feedback parameter... Measuring
radiative flux imbalances provides a direct measure of Y, and hence of S, unlike other ways of diagnosing climate sensitivity.»
the
purely radiative approach, which is incorrect, misleading, contrary to observation, and results in a variety of inconsistencies when people try to plug real atmospheric physics into a bad
model
The reason this warms the surface is most easily understood by starting with a simplified
model of a
purely radiative greenhouse effect that ignores energy transfer in the atmosphere by convection (sensible heat transport) and by the evaporation and condensation of water vapor (latent heat transport).
«Our confidence in our conclusion... is based on the fact that the results of the
radiative - convective and heat - balance
model studies can be understood in
purely physical terms and are verified by the more complex GCM's.