Sentences with phrase «same atmospheric molecules»

Not exact matches

Tinetti says the earlier studies could be a product of the planets» bright sides cooking to the same temperature throughout, which makes atmospheric molecules less likely to absorb radiation from below.

A warm parcel of air will radiate more than a colder parcel, even at the same 390 ppm of CO2 in the air due to the population of the different rotational and vibrational energy states of the GHGs from collisions with other atmospheric molecules in the LTE limit.

However it happens, a planet's atmospheric temperature results from the heat it has absorbed, ie by ALL the molecules... which in any volume, are all at the same temperature.

And again: When you have multiple reservoirs with multiple time constants that are transferring CO2 back and forth, the residence time of a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is not the same as the time constant of the atmospheric concentration.

But is it true that «Nature will redistribute the contained atmospheric energy (using both convective and radiative processes) until each molecule, in an average sense, will have the same total energy»?

Nature will redistribute the contained atmospheric energy (using both convective and radiative processes) until each molecule, in an average sense, will have the same total energy.

It hinges on the proposition that «Nature will redistribute the contained atmospheric energy (using both convective and radiative processes) until each molecule, in an average sense, will have the same total energy.»

But it is surely also true that an atmosphere warmed at its base by conduction will transmit that heat throughout the atmospheric column, maintaining its temperature and lapse rate, yet with most of the molecules in that column having the same kinetic energy (the same heat, but not the same temperature).

Claiming that CO2 is IR reactant in the laboratory, as it is, does not mean that it reacts in exactly the same way in the atmosphere, or even more importantly, the troposphere where the atmospheric CO2 and water molecules are supposed to do the reradiation bit.

Since to me (and many scientists, although some wanted a lot more corroborative evidence, which they've also gotten) it makes absolutely no sense to presume that the earth would just go about its merry way and keep the climate nice and relatively stable for us (though this rare actual climate scientist pseudo skeptic seems to think it would, based upon some non scientific belief — see second half of this piece), when the earth changes climate easily as it is, climate is ultimately an expression of energy, it is stabilized (right now) by the oceans and ice sheets, and increasing the number of long term thermal radiation / heat energy absorbing and re radiating molecules to levels not seen on earth in several million years would add an enormous influx of energy to the lower atmosphere earth system, which would mildly warm the air and increasingly transfer energy to the earth over time, which in turn would start to alter those stabilizing systems (and which, with increasing ocean energy retention and accelerating polar ice sheet melting at both ends of the globe, is exactly what we've been seeing) and start to reinforce the same process until a new stases would be reached well after the atmospheric levels of ghg has stabilized.