Sentences with phrase «without radiative gases»

-- 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.

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.

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.

Not exact matches

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.

«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.»

Add CO2 to a gas without changing its temperature, and watch its radiative emission increasing in the CO2 bands.

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»

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.»

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.

It is a stabilization scenario in which total radiative forcing is stabilized shortly after 2100, without overshoot, by the application of a range of technologies and strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions (Fujino et al. 2006; Hijioka et al. 2008).

Thermal radiative equilibrium for his black boundaries is isothermal, and if the gas has a different thermal equilibrium then the system perpetually violates the second law with a radiative - gravitaional «heat fountain» that runs without work being done, precisely as my silver wire example does.

Representative Concentration Pathway 6.0 (RCP6) is a pathway that describes trends in long - term, global emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs), short - lived species, and land - use / land - cover change leading to a stabilisation of radiative forcing at 6.0 Watts per square meter (Wm − 2) in the year 2100 without exceeding that value in prior years.

Try naming one planet or moon in our solar system that has managed to retain an atmosphere without strongly radiative gases.

Without data of this type for several different moving atmospheres with radically different radiative gas concentrations, it can not answer the issue I am raising.

We need to find an equation that allows factors other than mass, gravity and insolation to affect V without affecting T because according to the Gas Laws T is determined only by the amount of KE needed to keep the mass of the atmosphere off the surface at a given height over and above that required for top of atmosphere radiative balance.

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.

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.