Sentences with phrase «radiative greenhouse»

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).

The fundamental flaw of the «radiative greenhouse» paradigm is the illusion that thermalization is a recursive process.

The radiative contribution of doubling atmospheric CO2 is minor, but this radiative greenhouse effect is treated quite differently by different climate hypotheses.

Still can't tell if the radiative greenhouse is real or falsified.

(This is also the reason, why the warming of real greenhouses is based essentially on stopping convection rather than on the radiative greenhouse effect, which is in them too weak to observe.)

There is no need for any other explanation as is supposedly presented in the false radiative greenhouse conjecture.

The biggest error of all the errors in the physics of the radiative greenhouse conjecture is that they «explain» the surface temperature of 288K using Stefan - Boltzmann calculations based on the direct solar radiation PLUS about TWICE as much supposed thermal energy input from the colder atmosphere.

That is very funny that they have two contradictory statements about how the radiative greenhouse effect even functions!

And even if it was insulation, this wouldn't do what is postulated by the radiative greenhouse in any case.

Without a radiative greenhouse effect, there is no climate alarm duck.

Thus the IPCC «backradiation» can not affect the temperature of the surface and there can be no atmospheric radiative greenhouse effect.

The big difference between this scenario is that the radiation from the lamp AND the radiation from the glass originate in materials at significantly higher temperatures than the gases and hence heat IS transferring from HOT to COLD unlike the fanciful «back radiative greenhouse effect» which truly defies the laws of Physics relying instead on pixie dust magic!

During this two - week transition period, any water vapor excess (or deficit) relative to the equilibrium distribution did of course produce a radiative greenhouse heating (or cooling) effect, but this «virtual forcing» was very transient in nature, without any lasting impact on the global temperature.

There are several serious errors in the «physics» of the radiative greenhouse conjecture.

I think these folks just can't stand the blow to their Ego's to really accept that the «climate science radiative greenhouse effect» really is a HOAX.

In the latter case it is about heat transfer and the way climate science has bungled the thermodynamics, in the former it is not about the radiative greenhouse effect as that is not about reflection.

But rationalists will find it quite interesting, hilarious, and extremely saddening... «Dear Joseph, I sent the link to your Youtube presentation titled «There is no radiative Greenhouse Effect» to... Continue reading →

... 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.

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:

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.

There is no 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!)

3) It is important to distinguish them, and not doing that is how the resulting illogic lends sophistical defenses for the radiative greenhouse effect.

That's the topic of my more recent paper and the above linked article, and that's what debunks any 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.

Willis» steel greenhouse in vacuum really is the best representation of the climate science radiative greenhouse effect.

I do not believe in the «radiative greenhouse effect» but photons do travel in many different directions in a complex system.

There is no 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».

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.

The issue which debunks climate science is its radiative greenhouse effect violating basic thermodynamics, not whether the atmosphere retains heat overnight because it doesn't have time to cool to 2.7 K.

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.

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.

Interesting comments here from those that believe in the «radiative Greenhouse Effect».

Late Pleistocene tropical Pacific temperature sensitivity to radiative greenhouse gas forcing — Dyez & Ravelo (2012)

When you understand this process and note the overwhelming evidence supporting its existence then, and only then, will you have a correct understanding as to why the radiative greenhouse is nothing but fiction.

Late Pleistocene tropical Pacific temperature sensitivity to radiative greenhouse gas forcing — Dyez & Ravelo (2012)

Not exact matches

We can determine the radiative forcing associated with the long - lived greenhouse gases fairly precisely, because we know their atmospheric concentrations, their spatial distribution and the physics of their interaction with radiation.

Several explanations for this widening have been proposed, such as radiative forcing due to greenhouse gas increase and stratospheric ozone depletion.

The first ideas about radiative balance and the greenhouse effect date back to 1827, while predictions about climatic sensitivity due to carbon dioxide were made by 1896.

The researchers [3] quantified China's current contribution to global «radiative forcing» (the imbalance, of human origin, of our planet's radiation budget), by differentiating between the contributions of long - life greenhouse gases, the ozone and its precursors, as well as aerosols.

Pierre, could you comment on what, exactly, is new in the recent Philipona paper, compared with the two similar papers they published last year («Greenhouse forcing outweighs decreasing solar radiation driving rapid temperature rise over land», «Radiative forcing — measured at Earth's surface — corroborate the increasing greenhouse effecGreenhouse forcing outweighs decreasing solar radiation driving rapid temperature rise over land», «Radiative forcing — measured at Earth's surface — corroborate the increasing greenhouse effecgreenhouse effect»)?

Dynamical effects (changes in the winds and ocean circulation) can have just as large an impact, locally as the radiative forcing from greenhouse gases.

That's why the «radiative forcing» concept works — it doesn't matter if the initial push is from greenhouse gases or the sun.

However, it is the atmosphere with increased greenhouse gases which makes the additional insulation and this is what effects the changing radiative fluxes that we are talking about.

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

(2) The largest positive radiative forcing — by far — has been the one due to long - lived greenhouse gases, most notably, CO2.

The effects of other well - mixed greenhouse gases can be accurately translated into radiative forcings.

James A. Edmonds • Member, IPCC Steering Committee on «New Integrated Scenarios» (2006 - present) • Lead Author, Working Group III, «Framing Issues,» IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (2007) • Lead Author, Working Group III, «Global, Regional, and National Costs and Ancillary Benefits of Mitigation,» IPCC Third Assessment Report (2001) • Lead Author, Working Group III, «Decision - Making Frameworks,» IPCC Third Assessment Report (2001) • Lead Author, Working Group III, Summary for Policy Makers, IPCC Third Assessment Report (2001) • Lead Author, Working Group II, «Energy Supply Mitigation Options,» IPCC Second Assessment Report (1996) • Lead Author, Working Group II, «Mitigation: Cross-Sectoral and Other Issues,» IPCC Second Assessment Report (1996) • Lead Author, Working Group III, «Estimating the Costs of Mitigating Greenhouse Gases,» IPCC Second Assessment Report (1996) • Lead Author, Working Group III, «A Review of Mitigation Cost Studies,» IPCC Second Assessment Report (1996) • Lead Author, Working Group III, «Integrated Assessment of Climate Change: An Overview and Comparison of Approaches and Results,» IPCC Second Assessment Report (1996) • Lead Author, IPCC Special Report, Climate Change 1994: Radiative Forcing of Climate Change and An Evaluation of the IPCC IS92 Emission Scenarios (1994) • Lead Author, IPCC Special Report, Climate Change 1992: The Supplementary Report to the IPCC Scientific Assessment (1992) • Major contributor, IPCC First Assessment Report, Working Group III, Response Strategies Working Group (1991).

The heights of the rectangular bars denote best estimate values guided by published values of the climate change agents and conversion to radiative perturbations using simplified expressions for the greenhouse gas concentrations and model calculations for the ice sheets, vegetation and mineral dust.