Sentences with phrase «without radiative»

That is how they view it, but they have, like Wikipedia, ignored mass transfer from heated surfaces to all gases, which would happen with or without any radiative component.

Without a radiative greenhouse effect, there is no climate alarm duck.

-- does it assume that tropospheric convective circulation would continue without radiative gases?

Without radiative gases the troposphere would go isothermal and convective circulation would cease.

The real issue is that without radiative gases, most of our atmosphere would boil off into space.

Full vertical circulation would stall in these cells without radiative cooling at altitude.

Joel could you please give me a direct yes or no answer to the following question — Do you believe that strong vertical tropospheric convective circulation would continue without radiative gases?

Could you please give me a direct yes or no answer to the following question — Do you believe that strong vertical tropospheric convective circulation would continue without radiative gases?

Without radiative gases, the surface would be ~ 255 K — which is much cooler than the surface or lower atmosphere with radiative gases.

No, without radiative cooling (but assuming the same albedo for simplicity), the temperature of the Earth's surface would not be average 288 K but rather only ~ 255 K (really the average of the square of the temperature over the surface).

Without radiative cooling at altitude, tropospheric temperatures above the near surface layer would rise to near surface Tmax.

David, could I please have a yes or no answer to the following — Do you believe that strong vertical tropospheric convective circulation would continue without radiative gases?

Thus the 2nd correct answer is «the lower atmosphere is WARMER than A SIMILAR ALTITUDE on a planet without radiative gases.»

It is also important to note that there are no planets or moons in the solar system that have managed to retain an atmosphere without radiative gases.

Without radiative gases, tropospheric temperatures would rapidly rise towards surface Tmax.

Raising the issue that tropospheric convective circulation can not continue without radiative gases could hardly be considered «nit picking» by any stretch of the imagination.

An atmosphere without radiative gases will not exhibit strong vertical tropospheric convective circulation.

Konrad; Could you please give me a direct yes or no answer to the following question — Do you believe that strong vertical tropospheric convective circulation would continue without radiative gases?

Without radiative gases the upper troposphere has no way to cool and convective circulation can not continue.

I believe I was quite clear in pointing out that this data did not exist for an atmosphere without radiative gases.

With a nitrogen only atmosphere that was as dense as the Earth's it would be much warmer though without any radiative forcing changes.

Without the radiative forcing provided by noncondensing GHGs, the most important of which is CO2, levels of water vapour would also decline and atmospheric temperatures would rapidly drop.

Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other non-condensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate to an icebound Earth state.

Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other non condensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state.»

Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other non-condensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state.

I see a testable hypothesis: «Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other noncondensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state»

You can not have LTE without radiative equilibrium too.

Without radiative cooling, convection would produce a warm enough atmosphere that further convection is suppressed by the stability.

If the atmosphere consisted of Oxygen / Nitrogen only, its thermal conductivity would be very low, solar heating would be much the same, and the insulation effect (and the gravitational lapse rate) would produce a substantial temperature differential from the surface to the top of the atmosphere without any radiative absorption.

Not exact matches

The model calculations, which are based on data from the CLOUD experiment, reveal that the cooling effects of clouds are 27 percent less than in climate simulations without this effect as a result of additional particles caused by human activity: Instead of a radiative effect of -0.82 W / m2 the outcome is only -0.60 W / m2.

We may — like the IPCC — draw the conclusion that the radiant flux changes are dominated by cloud radiative forcing changes without information on clouds.

The differential heating imposed on the troposphere + surface layer is sufficient that LW emissions from within the layer are not able to establish pure radiative equilibrium without having the temperature profile become unstable to convection.

[Response: I wouldn't want to criticize my colleagues without adequate space to give the scientific justification, but aside from that you need to remember what I said about the contribution from non-CO2 radiative forcing to date (and unlike CO2, the methane radiative forcing is largely reversible, so I myself don't count that the same way as CO2 radiative forcing).

The radiative forcing for CFCs is given as a linear relation for low concentrations see http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/ Does this hold for the much (ten times or more) larger concentrations we would expect without the Montreal Protocol?

First, for changing just CO2 forcing (or CH4, etc, or for a non-GHE forcing, such as a change in incident solar radiation, volcanic aerosols, etc.), there will be other GHE radiative «forcings» (feedbacks, though in the context of measuring their radiative effect, they can be described as having radiative forcings of x W / m2 per change in surface T), such as water vapor feedback, LW cloud feedback, and also, because GHE depends on the vertical temperature distribution, the lapse rate feedback (this generally refers to the tropospheric lapse rate, though changes in the position of the tropopause and changes in the stratospheric temperature could also be considered lapse - rate feedbacks for forcing at TOA; forcing at the tropopause with stratospheric adjustment takes some of that into account; sensitivity to forcing at the tropopause with stratospheric adjustment will generally be different from sensitivity to forcing without stratospheric adjustment and both will generally be different from forcing at TOA before stratospheric adjustment; forcing at TOA after stratospehric adjustment is identical to forcing at the tropopause after stratospheric adjustment).

Using the modtran model on line I get a radiative forcing from 10 * atmospheric methane of 3.4 Watts / m2 (the difference in the instantaneous IR flux out, labeled Iout, between cases with and without 10x methane).

My notes are weak here, but he seemed to talk about radical rises in radiative forcing without addressing methane alone.

One can not define a temperature at any point in the column with latent heating alone, without appealing to radiative transfer.

In the end, one need not know with a high degree of accuracy the intricacies of the climate's variability to show an increased warming trend: 3 Furthermore, there are no models that exist that are able to match recent observed warming without taking rising CO2 levels into account, i.e. if radiative forcings from CO2 aren't taken into account, then models don't match hindcasting.

Extremely likely: Warming during the past half century can not be explained without external radiative forcing.

Without denying the importance of the basic radiative physics, it is important to assert the importance of the non-radiative physics.

Molecules with radiative absorption capability will produce an atmosphere of a different volume at the same surface temperature and mass as compared to an atmosphere without such a capability.

It would follow the Manabe - Strickler type pure radiative profile that results in an average surface temperature of 60 C. I'm not sure if there's some way to have convection without convective mixing, but if condensation is still allowed I'd expect it to still follow a moist adiabat.

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

Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 4.5 is a scenario of long - term, global emissions of greenhouse gases, short - lived species, and land - use - land - cover which stabilizes radiative forcing at 4.5 W m − 2 (approximately 650 ppm CO2 - equivalent) in the year 2100 without ever exceeding that value.

do you believe that the tropopause region for which the anthropogenic radiative forcing is calculated can warm the nearly 65 K warmer Earth's surface without any compensating changes?

We consider the Earth without an atmosphere and calculate an temperature on the basis of a radiative equilibrium -LSB-...] Then we obtain nearly 255 K and state that the difference between this value and the mean global temperature amounts to 33 K. Unfortunately, this uniform temperature of the radiative equilibrium has nothing to do with the mean global temperature derived from observations -LSB-...] ``

People who continue to call into question the basic radiative transfer physics, people who continue to cherry - pick selected pieces of information without understanding it, etc are not acting like «skeptics.»

«Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 4.5 is a scenario of long - term, global emissions of greenhouse gases, short - lived species, and land - use - land - cover which stabilizes radiative forcing at 4.5 Watts per meter squared (W m - 2, approximately 650 ppm CO2 - equivalent) in the year 2100 without ever exceeding that value.»

It's still qualitative however, and getting a better handle on the question requires radiative transfer modeling and simulations that can adequately handle a greenhouse - free atmosphere without blowing up.