Not exact matches
There is an increase
rather than a decrease in upwelling
radiation, because the
radiation is coming
from a warmer
surface and troposphere.
What maintains the
surface temperature is thus not
radiation from GH gases, because it would have been hotter without them,
rather like the Moon that reaches temperatures around 130C.
«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.
Then, for the benefit of the lay reader, who would not be expected to understand the clear (to a competent physical scientist) implication of this simply - stated fact, I wrote: «This in fact indicates that the Venusian atmosphere is heated mainly by incident infrared [not the VISIBLE portion, which is indeed largely reflected, defenders, but INFRARED]
radiation from the Sun, WHICH IS NOT REFLECTED BUT ABSORBED [or allowed in to heat the lower atmosphere] by Venus's clouds,
rather than by warming first of the planetary
surface.
The result of the
radiation partial insulation is to raise the location of
radiation to space to a high altitude
rather than directly
from the
surface.