Brian porzio dating in the dark Bisexual local women chatlines
Again, the basic issue is this: replacing the downwelling sky radiation with a roof that is opaque to infrared (but still transparent to sunlight) represents a huge decrease in the IR energy loss by the vegetation, whereas the greenhouse roof still generates convective heat loss nearly as large as if the greenhouse wasn’t there.
I’m open to ideas, and better estimates of energy fluxes on this subject.
For example, the emissivity of glass is less than 1, but what that means is that it “traps” even more IR energy inside because it partly reflects the higher levels of IR the warmer vegetation is emitting upward. I’m sure this problem has been analyzed before, probably in great detail, by multiple aggie graduates in their theses.
Unfortunately, a Google search on “greenhouses” and “energy budget” is hopelessly cluttered with pages related to the Earth’s greenhouse effect (wow! ) If anyone is aware of studies done on the energy budget of greenhouses (of the agricultural kind), I would appreciate a reference or two.
BUT if it is instead a time-varying radiative imbalance causing a surface temperature change (causation reversed), .
If you try, then you will usually diagnose positive feedback, even if strongly negative feedback exists.
But, assuming I haven’t made a fundamental mistake, I think you would find that the “greenhouse effect” will consistently be larger than the convective inhibition effect.
So, maybe the greenhouse effect really does work like a real greenhouse.
First, let’s examine some approximate energy fluxes for vegetation in the summertime.
Note that the energy fluxes have to sum to zero for temperature equilibrium, and we will ignore the photosynthetic storage of energy in plants which is very inefficient.