Seen on a graph, total visible and infrared
radiation increases just before a sunspot appears, dips slightly for several days as it crosses the surface, then increases again as it disappears.
Not exact matches
According to previous simulations, UV - B
radiation at the end of the Permian may have
increased from a background level of 10 kilojoules (
just above current ambient levels) to as much as 100 kilojoules, due to large concentrations of ozone - damaging halogens spewed from volcanoes (SN: 1/15/11, p. 12).
But
just slightly
increasing the amount of available Mdmx, which grips p53 and renders it inactive, the Salk researchers discovered, made mice remarkably resistant to the harmful effects of
radiation but very susceptible to the development of oncogene - induced lymphomas.
But, the required dose of
radiation delivered to the chest is so high that a young woman getting
just a single scan, for example, may
increase her lifetime risk of breast cancer and lung cancer by between around 1 and 4 %.
According to Mark Sircus, in Transdermal Magnesium Therapy, a deficiency of magnesium
increases free radical generation in the body and «causes glutathione loss, which is not affordable because glutathione helps to defend the body against damage from cigarette smoking, exposure to
radiation, cancer chemotherapy, and toxins such as alcohol and
just about everything else.»
Since seawater absorption is nonzero at many wavelengths,
increased atmospheric back -
radiation due to a heightened greenhouse gases would inevitably warm the ocean,
just as it warms the land.
Just in terms of
radiation physics, converting desert to grassland
increases global warming.
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).
More importantly, it isn't
just the surface that is adjusting its outgoing
radiation to the
increased CO2, but the entire troposphere, and most of that
radiation is emanating from the high atmosphere.
Just face reality and admit that peer reviewed science empriically shows that during the late 20th century warming there was an
increase of 2.7 W / m ² to 6.8 W / m ² more solar
radiation reaching the earth's surface, which was ~ 10 times greater than the
increase in CO2 forcing.
Just face the reality that even your fellow climate cultists admit that 90 % of warming is observed in the
increase in OHC and that solar
radiation is the only physical climate heat transfer mechanism that transfers heat into the oceans, which means that 90 % of climate warming has been natural.
We then introduce a modest
increase in infrared
radiation into the room - at
just (let's keep it simple) a uniform 1 Watt / m2.
When sunspots are on the limb of the Sun —
just rotating onto or off of the face — the plage are prominent from our vantagepoint, creating a significant
increase in
radiation that far outweighs the dip of
radiation caused by the rest of the sunspot's transit.
Just as cleaning up air pollution may actually add up to 1 degree of warming, it may also
increase the risk of skin cancers and blindness from UV
radiation.
Now, add a source at greater than 15C (like a warm earth surface) and ad long as the rate of incoming 15 um
radiation is greater than the 15 um
radiation rate you already measured from your hohlraum there will be disequilibrium and the temperature of the hohlraum (not
just the CO2 but all of the gas) will
increase until the hohlraum is again emitting the same amount of 15 um
radiation as is coming in.
It is
just a delaying effect whereby the surface temperature
increases until the
increase in surface / space temperature differential in turn
increases the rate of
radiation to space and a new but higher temperature equilibrium is reached.
So while admitting, there probably is a very modest amount of AGW in the current warming cycle, it could
just as easily have been caused by: i) the effects of the huge
increase in global irrigation, ii) tiny changes in the sun's
radiation, and / or iii) the knock on effects of changes in the intensity and direction of ocean currents.
Surface temperature must therefore
increase,
just enough for the LW
radiation that is rejected to space at TOA to balance the SW
radiation that is absorbed.
An
increase in Solar
radiation can create it
just as effectively as an
increase in atmospheric CO2 does.
Since to me (and many scientists, although some wanted a lot more corroborative evidence, which they've also gotten) it makes absolutely no sense to presume that the earth would
just go about its merry way and keep the climate nice and relatively stable for us (though this rare actual climate scientist pseudo skeptic seems to think it would, based upon some non scientific belief — see second half of this piece), when the earth changes climate easily as it is, climate is ultimately an expression of energy, it is stabilized (right now) by the oceans and ice sheets, and
increasing the number of long term thermal
radiation / heat energy absorbing and re radiating molecules to levels not seen on earth in several million years would add an enormous influx of energy to the lower atmosphere earth system, which would mildly warm the air and increasingly transfer energy to the earth over time, which in turn would start to alter those stabilizing systems (and which, with
increasing ocean energy retention and accelerating polar ice sheet melting at both ends of the globe, is exactly what we've been seeing) and start to reinforce the same process until a new stases would be reached well after the atmospheric levels of ghg has stabilized.
An aside: one of the reasons that clouds modulate temperature so effectively is not
just the albedo
increase which bounces downwelling short wave
radiation back into space, but because they radiate IR back to the surface thus reducing the net rate of thermal radiative loss.»
An aside: one of the reasons that clouds modulate temperature so effectively is not
just the albedo
increase which bounces dowelling short wave
radiation back into space, but because they radiate IR back to the surface thus reducing the net rate of thermal radiative loss.
fine, as long as you can resolve the problems outlined aabove with the values taken from biology and the problem of the difference in temperature values from a black box at 235
increasing to 470w / m2 with no additional
radiation input - along with quite a number of problems associated with its application rather than
just censoring them.
Is this point only about the radiative characteristics of the H2O vapour, and the assumption that relative and / or specific humidity should rise thanks to CO2 - induced
increased evaporation, which in turn would
increase downwelling heat
radiation — or
just the part that slightly hotter surface (due to CO2) also emits more heat to be trapped by the vater vapour?
The statement «Greenhouse
radiation will only
increase that evaporation» is
just simply wrong.
If we get the same
increase in minimum sea ice extent during this solar minimum as we got during and after the last solar minimum it is going to be difficult to claim that it is
just a coincidence, the AMO is likely correlated to solar
radiation.
In
just 5 years it was responsible for a 2 % decrease in low clouds (the kind that reflect incoming solar
radiation by day) which, in turn, equates to an
increase in surface warming of 1.2 Wm - 2 from incident
radiation — equivalent to some 85 % of the IPCC's estimate for the effect of all carbon dioxide
increase since the Industrial Revolution.
This includes the Planck response, which is
just the
increase in OLR (outgoing longwave
radiation) in response to temperature according to the Planck function and the given optical properties.
There may well be a case a different efficacy of IR «forcings» and SW
radiation that can penetrate the surface, but adding an extra fudge factor to every quantity
just spuriously
increases ability to fit whatever past climate did at the same time as reducing the possibility that it is a physically meaningful result.
Hmmm, so outgoing
radiation at all wavelengths
increases as temperature, but since the peak goes to lower wavelengths, it
just does not
increase as quickly at long wavelengths?