Thats my simple question!
Loudzoo said:IR does not penetrate below 1cm
... not "wrong," into a "semantic ditch," perhaps. If you're going to give me all the solar radiation that penetrates further than 1 mm by the Kebes plot (shorter than 2 μm), you've given me 80 - 90% of the IR. If you define IR as only that radiation that is absorbed in 1 mm or less, and ignore the 0.8 - 2 μm gap between visible and IR acknowledged by a specific argument, you're losing a lot of energy.Loudzoo said:Where am I going
What is "back radiation?"Loudzoo said:Can an increase in Atmospheric back radiation
Not being "flip" with you --- just wanted to be sure we're both working from the same initial set of ideas/postulates/principles.Loudzoo said:Heat moves from hot to cold obviously.
Welcome to the wonderful world of energy "balances" in non-equilibrium systems. The system we're "analyzing" (hah!) has as heat sources the sun, ~ 10-4steradians at ~ 5800 K or 1-1.3 kW/m2 at Earth surface, and crustal heat leak of 10-30 mW/m2, negligible. The heat sink is 4π steradians at ~ 4 K, the CMB. What else do we know? Some fraction of incident solar radiation is reflected, what fraction is subject to some uncertainty; some fraction is transmitted, very small through the atmospheric "halo", but enough to illuminate an otherwise totally eclipsed moon; and, some fraction is absorbed by atmo-, hydro-, and lithospheres, exchanged by conduction, convection, and radiation, and radiated to the CMB.Loudzoo said:And quite frankly I'm confused!
Loudzoo said:I understand the popular theory well enough but I don't understand the physical process of how additional CO2 in the atmosphere can lead to higher ocean temperatures. Can you help me?
This (the 3 C out of 33 C differential) appears to be the "first/principle/primary" postulate from which the argument is developed, and bothers me no end. The 33 C total greenhouse effect is the difference between a "global mean temperature" which can be called a real measurement, and a hypothetical "gray body" radiation steady state temperature, neither of which are presented with any uncertainties that I've seen (haven't done a global search, but am not used to having to do other peoples' error analyses). Dissections into contributions from various mechanisms, either as actual heat fluxes, or ΔT values, have likewise been less than transparent to me regarding methods and uncertainties.Loudzoo said:Without greenhouse gases in the atmosphere the Earth's atmosphere would be some 33C cooler on average. Approx 3C of that can be attributed to CO2 at current concentrations.