Sentences with phrase «radiative physics does»

No, a simplistic application of radiative physics does not apply.

Then how come your radiative physics does not exist in engineering textbooks or the atmosphere?

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.

I suspect given what we know about radiative physics and what we don't know about the sun during a prolonged grand minimum it is equally likely that it will be no warmer in 2100 than it is today.

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.

Chaos doesn't enter into the forcing term — it's classical radiative physics.

I'm referring to people that 1) don't believe in radiative physics 2) claim that CO2 can only do good 5) do not support advanced air pollution control for toxics and short duration GHGs Ok yes, there is the odd handful of those.

I look at the basics of radiative physics and ask follow - up questions about details, including details entailed in non-radiative physics My favorite questions to date: (1) if, as Chris Colose wrote in the earlier thread, Willis Eschenbach's graphical analysis of cloud cover and temperature is basically correct, does that not make a reasonable case that cloud cover increases can be expected to prevent future warming from future CO2 increases?

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.

Natural variability does not mean that simple radiative physics ceases to function.

It's weird that skeptic «y» does believe in radiative physics.

Well — no it doesn't — it won't — and while is some very basic radiative physics involved — the fundamental mechanism of climate is chaos.

Consider this one: Basic «radiative transfer physics» doesn't magically means AGW.

This remains to be seen, of course, but it's important to point out that the trospospheric amplification prediction does not originate in the models but in the basic physics of radiative transfer in combination with the Clausius - Clapeyron relationship describing the change in atmospheric water vapor as a function of temperature.

It is the principles of radiative physics, the acceptance of which forms the dividing line between those you listen to and those you don't listen to.

BBD writes - «Finite fossil hydrocarbon reserves (note I do not limit this definition to «fuel») plus robust physics of radiative transfer, plus paleoclimate evidence plus uncertainty are, together, more than sufficient grounds to justify the rapid reduction in fossil HC use.»

Well, yes, I do presume that basic radiative physics is correct, it's been around for a century or so.

We know this from fundamental physics B) the final temp and the temporal and spatial evolution of that temperature is a combination of many factors, some which we understand well (radiative physics) and some which we do nt understand very well..

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.

Finite fossil hydrocarbon reserves (note I do not limit this definition to «fuel») plus robust physics of radiative transfer, plus paleoclimate evidence plus uncertainty are, together, more than sufficient grounds to justify the rapid reduction in fossil HC use.

Peter — he was talking about the poltical will to act wrt climate change, ie., burying your head in the sand doesn't stop radiative physics.

I don't think it can without violating the known rules of radiative physics.

For those who do not believe an warmer but still cold atmospheric layer can not cause the surface to warm clearly do not understand the basic physics of radiative heat transfer.

Anyway, do you agree that there is a major difference between the «simple physics» versions («CO2 acts like a giant blanket») and the more sophisticated radiative physics - based models used in the global climate models (for instance)?

Measurements of net radiative balance do not disprove this basic fact of physics.

Radiative Transfer Physics does not depend entirely on the simple absorbtivity of CO2, which by the way is effectively permanent in air when added by burning fossil fuels, compared to water which saturates and precipitates out depending on climate conditions, such as warming due the GHE, as a marginal shift in the dynamic equilibrium through feedbacks.

Again, I don't think you can provide evidence of Judy arguing that radiative heat transfer physics is faulty.

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.»

On the other hand, this issue does involve complexities of atmospheric radiative physics, does it not?

Involving the adiabatic lapse rate is an effort to reconcile radiative physics with the Ideal Gas Law but taking the effective radiating height as the appropriate «surface» does not work for reasons that I will discuss in more detail in Parts B and C of this article.

That is what seems to be coming out of this, but I do want this to follow proper physics and radiative transfer keeping out of areas which do not really even apply if you can approach it correct.

Why don't you pick up an introductory textbook on climatology, radiative transfer, or atmosphere physics, and actually read it?

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.

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.