Sentences with phrase «real ghe»

You get the real GHE from correct radiation physics, which is that thermal IR from the lower atmosphere blocks surface IR emission in GHG band centres, reducing total emissivity.

In effect they claimed that if you reduce ghgs to zero, the surface falls to -18 deg C. However, the insolation rises by 43 % [no clouds or ice] so the real surface temperature is 4 — 5 deg C, a real GHE of 11 K.

The real GHE is the reduction of surface emissivity, also possibly coupled convection as atmospheric GHG thermal - emission Poynting Vectors annihilate the UP PVs in that wavelength interval.

Not exact matches

The real «flat plate» GHE is between 11 and 17 K depending on your estimate of present albedo and planetary emissivity in the absence of GHGs.

That is really not relevant to the discussion on the real argument for GHE & EHGE, which depends on frequency - specific issues like the absorption coefficient.

In short, the real world shows no proof of any CO2 - driven GHE whatsoever.book.

I know that this approach is taken for the hand - waving argument we saw much earlier — but that is one aspect of why that is merely a back - of - the - envelope calculation, not a real explanation of the GHE.

I make precisely as much money from granting agencies for shooting down Jelbring's absurd paper as I do from the Big Oil companies for stating that the preponderance of evidence suggests that the very real GHG - GHE is not a catastrophic threat under any reasonable scenario for the economic and technological development of the world for the rest of the 21st century.

It could be that an improved understanding of the dynamical transport mechanisms associated with the DALR and convection might help place limits on the climate sensitivity to GH forcing, and that people on this list could be thinking about things like that instead of trying to pretend that the GHE isn't real.

Unless any of the many, many people who have argued against the conclusion that Jelbring's work is completely wrong and should have never been accepted in the first place wish to keep arguing, perhaps the more polite ones can concede in one last post and we can wrap this up and move on to N&Z, the «existence» of a real, live GHE, and maybe, just maybe, get to where the skeptical arguments on the list are much better informed and less likely to play fast and loose with the laws of nature or thermodynamics.

There is direct, in my opinion incontrovertible, evidence that the GHG - driven GHE is real: The satellite IR spectral data.

It just indicates that there is no question that the GHE exists and is real, because you can photograph it in action from orbit.

office and other modellers won't acknowledge the real cause of the UHI is that to do so, they would have to admit that the Earth does not emit IR as if it were an isolated black body in a vacuum, so the GHE is the reduction of its emissivity.

The «GHE» is about as real as the aforementioned Philosopher's Stone.

But the debate is not well served by «denying» that the GHE itself is real, or by making absurd and obviously incorrect statements about trace gases not being able to help the Earth maintain its surface temperature well above its greybody value, or make irrelevant statements about «cold being unable to heat hot» (which is not what happens) or simply incorrect statements about the first or second law of thermodynamics somehow being violated by the GHE (which is absolutely trivial to demonstrate as purely false and silly besides, by doing a (gasp) actual computation of the entropy changes).

In reply to people above who want to argue that the GHE isn't real, or can't work on the basis of a «trace gas», or because the air above is colder than the surface below — all I can say is «piffle».

The context being the point I'm making that the Greenhouse Effect is built on science fraud by sleight of hand changes to real physics, the ideal gas / real gas is just one example — the real world around us is nothing like it is depicted in the AGW GHE..

And, because those being brainwashed with ideal gas descriptions with no teaching on the differences between ideal gas and real gases which have real properties of weight, volume and attraction, which have been given different names because they are different from each other, what we also have is the inability of those pushing the GHE to see the absurdities created by extrapolating from their ideal gas..

Nasif Nahle April 15th, 2011 at 3:44 pm «Demonstrate that the following equation supports the GHE: q / m ^ 2 = 0.82 (5.6697 x 10 ^ -8 W / m ^ 2 K ^ 4)(293 K) ^ 4 It is the formula to calculate the amount of energy absorbed by the surface introducing real measurements.»

Obviously the GHE must be real, or we wouldn't be spending trillions of dollars on fixing it up.