Sentences with phrase «radiative greenhouse effect»

The differential equations of heat flow and conservation of energy simply do not do what is claimed by the climate science 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 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).

Greg, with respect, I DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE IPCC RADIATIVE GREENHOUSE EFFECT, OK?

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!

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

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 Greenhouse Effect is a flea on the back of an oceanic elephant and the influence of CO2 but a microbe on the back of the flea and the influence of anthropogenic CO2 but a molecule on the back of the microbe.

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.

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.

There is no 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 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

There is no alternative to the radiative greenhouse effect required and there is no alternative reasoning required to explain «extra temperature», since there is no extra temperature at all.

There is no way that they've (skeptics who defend the greenhouse effect) gone this long without ever being able to imagine analyzing the radiative greenhouse effect for legitimacy, particularly when the climate models, which are based on the metaparadigm of a radiative greenhouse effect, have failed for 18 years.

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

Josh, that is the premise of the radiative greenhouse effect.

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

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).