Sentences with phrase «radiative physics v»

That only leaves T and V to vary and according to radiative physics V can not vary without first varying T which is where concern about the warming effects of GHGs comes from.

Do you think such experimentation to understand the basic laws of radiative physics has never been done?!?! If you want to understand the laws of radiative physics, I suggest that you go read about them.

Not exact matches

You've got the radiative physics, the measurements of ocean temperature and land temperature, the changes in ocean heat content (Hint — upwards, whereas if if was just a matter of circulation moving heat around you might expect something more simple) and of course observed predictions such as stratospheric cooling which you don't get when warming occurs from oceanic circulation.

A clear explanation of radiative forcing, CO2 infrared opacity and how additional atmospheric CO2 will contribute to significant warming would be important to many of trying to explain the physics of global warming.

And Bob, don't forget to explain just how these natural factors would negate the known and demonstrated radiative physics of greenhouse gases.

On the possibility of a changing cloud cover «forcing» global warming in recent times (assuming we can just ignore the CO2 physics and current literature on feedbacks, since I don't see a contradiction between an internal radiative forcing and positive feedbacks), one would have to explain a few things, like why the diurnal temperature gradient would decrease with a planet being warmed by decreased albedo... why the stratosphere should cool... why winters should warm faster than summers... essentially the same questions that come with the cosmic ray hypothesis.

But fortunately we have 100 + years of radiative physics to help point the way...

If you are really interested in this (and not just interested in grasping at straws in a vain hope that adding more GHG's to the Earth's atmosphere will have no effect) you should pick up a text book on introductory atmospheric physics or atmospheric radiative transfer.

It is hypothetically possible to have populations of different temperatures within the same volume; as long as each seperate population is at LTE within itself, the radiative physics as described above can apply in a modified way — for example, the density distribution of an EWF would have to be distributed over space and over the different populations within that space.)

The MWP is important of course for what it tells us about societies failure to adapt to change, not so important to the AGW debate (radiative physics still has the dominant role to play there).

This is the first time I have heard you deny radiative physics.

Knowing that nothing I could find would overturn radiative physics.

You, respectfully, have to go back to the drawing board and think of this nonsense of radiative physics conveniently written for you and few others like you.

I have looked at the physics that claims that this can be done, and I am as certain as I can be that there is no proper physics that allows us to even estimate, let alone measure, how much global temperature changes as a result of a change in radiative forcing.

It seems your colleagues admit, however unwillingly, that the focus on radiative physics and the obsession on CO2 has not produced a complete understanding of the climate system.

@ monty» you would then have to explain why elevated CO2 wasn't having the radiative effect that atmospheric physics predicts»

If you actually had the first effing clue as to what radiative physics actually is you'd understand why the Hug experiment is precisely the proof you request, but you would rather remain ignorant.

«Nobody without a PhD in Radiative Physics is even entitled to have an opinion about Global Warming».

IF GCRs were driving recent warming, you would then have to explain why elevated CO2 wasn't having the radiative effect that atmospheric physics predicts.

To the wider club membership, critique of some behaviors may have appeared to be a rebuke of the radiative transfer model physics itself.

Of course feedbacks can have offsetting effects — but if you accept the radiative physics of AGW, then you believe that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes global warming.

Finally, if I were to emphasize any single point in the above commentary, it would be that in addition to an analysis of trends, a detailed knowledge of the radiative physics of greenhouse gases and their consequences is needed for proper interpretation.

Based on the principles of radiative physics and reasonable estimates of feedbacks and climate sensitivity, I would say that any current oscillations beyond those we already know can't be strong so strong that they leave little or no room for what anthropogenic emissions are contributing to the temperature trend.

Either a century of basic physics and chemistry studying the radiative properties of greenhouse gases would have to be proven wrong, or the natural cycle would have to be unbelievably complex to prevent such dramatic anthropogenic emissions from warming the planet.

Scientists have predicted that GHG forcing resulting from the physics of radiative transfer will cause energetic imbalance for over a century.

The physics of radiative transfer has not been falsified.

The physics of radiative transfer has been exhaustively investigated and described and never shown to be invalid.

I'm not sure what you would label me, but I am certain that the current understanding of Physics that explains the temperature lapse rate with GHG's and radiative forcing is incorrect.

If I don't have to look at forcings or radiative physics to know the greenhouse effect is causing these changes, I want to know.

At this point, very simple physics takes over, and you are pretty much doomed, by what scientists refer to as the «radiative» properties of carbon dioxide molecules (which trap infrared heat radiation that would otherwise escape to space), to have a warming planet.

1) «Natural variability» lacks the parsimony, simplicity and universality to explain observations and why AGW wouldn't happen when radiative transfer physics predicts it must.

Pekka Pirilla here and elsewhere has helped me understand radiative physics.

Alec M.: I am prepared to repeat this master class in the real heat transfer at the Earth's surface on as regular a basis as needed to correct the problem of people having been taught incorrect radiative physics!

«Nobody without a PhD in radiative physics is even entitled to have an opinion about climate science»

Another reason that hypothesis II and III are not as plausible in my view is that for them to be correct, our understanding of radiative physics etc., which have been tested experimentally and by observations (e.g. spectra of outbound IR radiation) must be fundamentally wrong.

Two other physicists, specialists of the atmosphere [6], have shown that the ideas of the radiative - convective equilibrium and the definitions of the greenhouse effect are absurd w.r.t elementary physics.

If you are not a published «climate scientist» approved by the Team and (preferably) with a PhD in Radiative Physics, you are not entitled to have any questions.

«6: Incomprehensible...» ANSWER: figure 6 - A to 6 - D explain the basic physics of the radiative effect of trace gas in the air; cards n ° 14, 15, 16 explain further the basics that are supposed to be understood by anyone speaking or writing about radiation in the air.

This would get beyond the settled science part of radiative heat transfer physics that most of us (including Judy) accepts and puts more emphasis into the context of «to what extent» will it influence our climate over what period of time.

I should also add that an alternative model for glacial cycle assuming GHG feedback was insignificant would have to produce some physics to show how the radiative effect from change in GHG managed to have no effect.

I don't see anywhere in his CV where he has advanced degrees in radiative physics that would lend credence to his being a «greenhouse gas expert.»

It's such an extreme bastardisation of the physics and mathematics relating to radiative fluxes that it should have been called out by EVERY PhD in relevant disciplines and ridiculed for the Alice in Wonderland thinking it clearly is.

D Cotton June 15, 2013 at 6:38 am The whole of the pseudo physics of greenhouse effects and assumed heating of the surface by back radiation (or «radiative forcing») is trying to utilise the Stefan - Boltzmann equation which only relates to bodies in a vacuum losing all their energy by radiation without any conduction or evaporative cooling.

Competing ideas explaining that without existing and verified radiative transfer ideas, but with what they need, which is essentially new physics, would be interesting to read.

Reply to Springer: Climate Alchemy has messed up IR conversion to heat, and radiative physics.

The real answer is that probably for ~ 50 years, since Carl Sagan made two bad mistakes, some, perhaps all US Universities have taught incorrect Radiative Physics.

Well, the formula came up from those books on physics and radiative heat transfer that you have never touched:

I am particularly grateful to Professors David Douglass and Robert Knox for having patiently answered many questions over several weeks, and for having allowed me to present a seminar on some of these ideas to a challenging audience in the Physics Faculty at Rochester University, New York; to Dr. David Evans for his assistance with temperature feedbacks; to Professor Felix Fitzroy of the University of St. Andrews for some vigorous discussions; to Professor Larry Gould and Dr. Walter Harrison for having given me the opportunity to present some of the data and conclusions on radiative transfer and climate sensitivity at a kindly - received public lecture at Hartford University, Connecticut; to Dr. Joanna Haigh of Imperial College, London, for having supplied a crucial piece of the argument; to Professor Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for his lecture - notes and advice on the implications of the absence of the tropical mid-troposphere «hot - spot» for climate sensitivity; to Dr. Willie Soon of the Harvard Center for Astrophysics for having given much useful advice and for having traced several papers that were not easily obtained; and to Dr. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama at Huntsville for having answered several questions in connection with satellite data.

I agree with the general content but I have a different interpretation of the historical development of radiative physics.

I noticed it was a pile of crap when in the first chapter the authors sta, rted throwing around the diffusion equation without any reason to do so (the greenhouse gas theory of climate has very little to do with the heat diffusion) and began accusing every person who has studied radiative physics with confusion reflection and absorbtion / emission.