Sentences with phrase «warming effect of radiation»

Not exact matches

Some observers quietly worry that, under Trump, a new focus on climate engineering could become part of a justification for delaying government action to curb carbon emissions, with the reasoning that geoengineering technologies could later be used to remove carbon from the atmosphere, or prevent the warming effects of solar radiation.

The greenhouse effect is the process in which the emission of infrared radiation by the atmosphere warms a planet's surface.

Black carbon warms the atmosphere because of its ability to absorb radiation from the sun, but its effect can be especially pernicious in polar regions, where, falling on bright ice, the soot diminishes the regions» ability to reflect away heat.

By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified

The warming trends in looking at numerous 100 year temperature plots from northern and high elevation climate stations... i.e. warming trends in annual mean and minimum temperature averages, winter monthly means and minimums and especially winter minimum temperatures and dewpoints... indicate climate warming that is being driven by the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere — no visible effects from other things like changes in solar radiation or the levels of cosmic rays.

If the temperature below is warmer than the local temperature, IR radiation that is re-radiated is less than is absorbed, the net effect of the greenhouse gases is to warm that layer.

For example, they predicted the expansion of the Hadley cells, the poleward movement of storm tracks, the rising of the tropopause, the rising of the effective radiating altitude, the circulation of aerosols in the atmosphere, the modelling of the transmission of radiation through the atmosphere, the clear sky super greenhouse effect that results from increased water vapor in the tropics, the near constancy of relative humidity, and polar amplification, the cooling of the stratosphere while the troposphere warmed.

Detailed studies of the energy balance and ablation of the Zongo and Chacaltaya glaciers support the importance of air temperature increase, and identify the increase in downward infrared radiation as the main way that the effect of the warmer air is communicated to the glacier surface [Wagnon et al. 1999; Francou et al, 2003].

By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified

From Wikipedia Greenhouse effect The mechanism is named after a faulty analogy with the effect of solar radiation passing through glass and warming a greenhouse.

The effect where, adding a «new» absorption band and increasing the absorption, there may initially be warming of the colder layers, etc, followed by a stage of upper level or near - TOA cooling — this includes the warming from absorption from increased radiation from the surface + troposphere — which will be greater when more of the spectrum, especially near wavelengths where the emitted spectral flux change is greatest, has a greater amount of absorption.

Re 9 wili — I know of a paper suggesting, as I recall, that enhanced «backradiation» (downward radiation reaching the surface emitted by the air / clouds) contributed more to Arctic amplification specifically in the cold part of the year (just to be clear, backradiation should generally increase with any warming (aside from greenhouse feedbacks) and more so with a warming due to an increase in the greenhouse effect (including feedbacks like water vapor and, if positive, clouds, though regional changes in water vapor and clouds can go against the global trend); otherwise it was always my understanding that the albedo feedback was key (while sea ice decreases so far have been more a summer phenomenon (when it would be warmer to begin with), the heat capacity of the sea prevents much temperature response, but there is a greater build up of heat from the albedo feedback, and this is released in the cold part of the year when ice forms later or would have formed or would have been thicker; the seasonal effect of reduced winter snow cover decreasing at those latitudes which still recieve sunlight in the winter would not be so delayed).

What climate models assume is a wide - ranging compendium of physical processes that are either well known but too complicated to incorporate into the climate model (for example the direct radiational effect of Carbon Dioxide on greenhouse warming is considerably * simplified * compared to the most sophisticated «line - by - line» radiation models that are available, simply because there isn't enough computer power to make the line - by - line calculation at every location on Earth at every time step within in a GCM), or are not sufficiently well - known to treat them with complete certainty.

Spencer + Braswell have shown that over the tropics on a shorter - term basis, the net overall feedback from clouds with warming is negative; this is largely due to an increase in reflection of incoming radiation by increased clouds with a smaller effect from the reduction of energy trapping high altitude clouds, which slow down outgoing radiation by absorbing and re-radiating energy.

In particular, the authors find fault with IPCC's conclusions relating to human activities being the primary cause of recent global warming, claiming, contrary to significant evidence that they tend to ignore, that the comparatively small influences of natural changes in solar radiation are dominating the influences of the much larger effects of changes in the atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations on the global energy balance.

Although a libertarian might well agree that CO2 absorbs / scatters IR radiation, and that this will produce a warming effect, and agree that this effect could cause problems, and could even agree that it requires the intervention of some agency, he doesn't have to agree with Read that this represents either a global catastrophe in the making, or a palpable «limit to growth».

Waters at this depth can not be warmed directly by the sun or greenhouse effect as solar radiation penetrates only to 100 metres depth, while infra - red radiation from the greenhouse effect can only warm the immediate surface «skin» of the ocean.

To me, it is more likely the fluctuation in E-UV coming from the sun that causes the warming and cooling effects by changing the reactions that are happening on TOA, i.e. O3, HxOx and NOx are rising now, causing more back radiation of F - UV, meaning less energy going in the oceans.

It seems the radiation of CO2 molecules would greater effect on something colder as compered to something warmer.

Callendar in the 1930's (AGW a factor in early 20th warming), Plass (radiation balance) and Revelle (oceans won't absorb all anthropogenic CO2) in the 1950's, Keeling measuring CO2 in the 1960's, Manabe and others in the 1970's modelling GHG effects, etc - all contributed to the body of evidence.

The same principle explains why a blanket or thick jacket keeps you warm on a cold day better than a thin one (assuming no wind, which adds the cooling effect of convection to that of radiation).

I read the Callendar's paper today — and I couldn't believe the already in 1938 somebody proved that co2 has virtually on effect on warming due to the narrow band of spectrum it absorbs, and the amount of radiation which was intercepted by co2 concentration in XIX century was actually reaching the max.

When heat energy gets released from Earth's surface, some of that radiation is trapped by greenhouse gases like CO2; the effect is what makes our planet comfy temperature-wise, but too much and you get global warming.

However, the fact that trees are generally darker than most other land coverings means that forested parts of the Earth's surface reflect away less incoming solar radiation, giving forests a warming effect.

As Frank pointed out in a comment at Science of Doom, the change in downwelling longwave radiation is only redistributing energy, contributing to some warming at the surface, perhaps with some effect on ocean overturning, and changing the lapse rate.

As more water vapor enters the atmosphere, that in turn absorbs more SW radiation, and, as this recent MIT study has shown, we might actually see that we have a seemingly paradoxical effect of the bulk of the warming then being in the SW, even as net LW actually increases with increasing GH gas levels:

He has stated that additional CO2 should have a small effect on temperatures but I have not heard of him endorsing the illogical idea of «back radiation» (to which I believe you refer) as a warming process in the atmosphere.

The mechanism is named after the effect of solar radiation passing through glass and warming a greenhouse, but the way it retains heat is fundamentally different as a greenhouse works by reducing airflow, isolating the warm air inside the structure so that heat is not lost by convection.»

So while admitting, there probably is a very modest amount of AGW in the current warming cycle, it could just as easily have been caused by: i) the effects of the huge increase in global irrigation, ii) tiny changes in the sun's radiation, and / or iii) the knock on effects of changes in the intensity and direction of ocean currents.

Global warming refers to an increase in the average temperature of the Earth as a result of the greenhouse effect, in which gases in the upper atmosphere trap solar radiation close to the planet's surface instead of allowing it to dissipate into space.

At night the reflection effect is zero so the greenhouse effect and reflection of thermal radiation dominate and the low thick clouds have a warming effect.

If the direct effect of the aerosol increase is considered, surface temperatures will not get as warm because the aerosols reflect solar radiation.

[62] see the graph comparing surface radiation absorbed by the air and radiation of the air to the surface in Dr. Ferenc M. Miskolczi Physics of the planetary greenhouse effect International conference on global warming, New York, March -4, 2008.

Added methane reduces heat radiation to space, amplifying the warming effect of carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels.

The overall effect of the cloudiness on the earth is a cooling effect but there is enough warming due to the decrease in outgoing IR radiation that it offset a considerable fraction of the cooling effect due to the increase in albedo alone.

4 Greenhouse Effect Certain atmospheric gases trap some of the infrared radiation that escapes from the Earth, making the Earth warmer than it would be otherwise.

The exchange of incoming and outgoing radiation that warms the Earth is often referred to as the greenhouse effect because a greenhouse works in much the same way.

You also have to bear in mind that UHI isn't just about having the potential to artificially raise maximum temperatures, but more significant is the effect it has on reducing the extremes of night time minimums; sun - warmed asphalt / concrete, radiation from warm buildings and warm air from AC vents are the key to the UHI effect.

In effect the evaporation sucks energy from the oceans against the thermal gradient within the ocean bulk and despite the warming of the topmost molecules caused by infra red radiation and then expels it to the air in the form of latent heat carried by water vapour.

Such an «ocean greenhouse effect» would warm the oceans much more effectively than the increase of the back radiation.

A greenhouse's warming effect is predominantly due to its impeding convection, not impeding specific frequencies of radiation.

But, were the Sun's activity and total radiation to drop in the coming century to levels of the Maunder Minimum, solar effects might reduce the expected surface temperature effects of enhanced greenhouse warming — by at most about 0.5 °C.

Clouds can have a double effect on radiation: they warm the earth by reducing the amount of radiation from the earth that escapes into space but also cool the earth by reflecting the sun's rays back into space.

Notice how the two fainter lines at the top are the separate effects of the warmer surface and the higher atmospheric temperature creating more longwave radiation.

By showing that (a) there are no c ommon physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effect b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 C a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.

So, the Sun heats the ocean, but it heats it more because of the warming effect of the back radiation makes the ocean's cooling less efficient.

Others accept (correctly) that that is unlikely due to the thermal inertia of our oceans and their cooling effect on the air so they propose an «ocean skin'theory whereby warming of the topmost molecules on the ocean surface from extra downwelling infra red radiation from extra human CO2 in the air is supposed to reduce the natural energy flow from sea to air so that the oceans get warmer and then heat the air and kill us off that way.

29 21.3 Climate Changes Human Impact on Climate Changes The Greenhouse Effect • The greenhouse effect is a natural warming of both Earth's lower atmosphere and Earth's surface from solar radiation being absorbed and emitted by the atmosEffect • The greenhouse effect is a natural warming of both Earth's lower atmosphere and Earth's surface from solar radiation being absorbed and emitted by the atmoseffect is a natural warming of both Earth's lower atmosphere and Earth's surface from solar radiation being absorbed and emitted by the atmosphere.

David Springer wrote: The greenhouse effect, by trapping infrared radiation, can lower the albedo of the earth and cause global warming.

The reverse effect of a more quiescent sun reduces direct solar warming and, by permitting the penetration of cosmic rays, facilitates low cloud formation, which increases reflection of already reduced solar radiation, reduces clear sky, reduces evaporation and simultaneously reduces the availability of the most important greenhouse gas, water vapor, through condensation and precipitation.