Brian porzio on dating in the dark dating a thai man
One of the oft-cited objections to the term “greenhouse effect” is that it is a misnomer, that a real greenhouse (you know, the kind you grow plants in) doesn’t work by inhibiting infrared energy loss.It is usually claimed that a real greenhouse works by inhibiting convective heat loss by trapping the sun-heated air inside.So, maybe the greenhouse effect really does work like a real greenhouse.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.But notice that the convective heat loss by the greenhouse roof (200 W/m2, inferred as a residual) is only 8 W/m2 less than if the greenhouse was not there (208 W/m2).In contrast, the extra IR energy “input” (actually, reduced IR “loss”) is twelve times as large (100 W/m2) as the reduction in the convective loss (8 W/m2).
BUT if it is instead a time-varying radiative imbalance causing a surface temperature change (causation reversed), .But I totally reject that…there are many reasons why (for example) clouds (and thus albedo) can change that are not caused by temperature. Dessler really believes it, why does he not include a time lag in his feedback diagnoses?(It usually take time — sometimes months — for the atmospheric response to a surface temperature change to fully develop).Albuquerque, NM Arlington, TX Atlanta, GA Austin, TX Baltimore, MD Boston, MA Charlotte, NC Chicago, IL Cleveland, OH Colorado Springs, CO Columbus, OH Dallas, TX Denver, CO Detroit, MI El Paso, TX Ft.
Worth, TX Fresno, CA Honolulu, HI Houston, TX Indianapolis, IN Jacksonville, FL Kansas City, MO Las Vegas, NV Long Beach, CA Los Angeles, CA Louisville, KY Memphis, TN Mesa, AZ Miami, FL Milwaukee, WI Minneapolis, MN Nashville, TN New Orleans, LA New York City, NY Oakland, CA Oklahoma City, OK Omaha, NE Philadelphia, PA Phoenix, AZ Portland, OR Sacramento, CA San Antonio, TX San Diego, CA San Francisco, CA San Jose, CA Seattle, WA Tucson, AZ Tulsa, OK Virginia Beach, VA Washington, D. UPDATE: It appears the debate was brought up in the literature by R. In any event, his paper was refuted by Edwin Berry (Comments on “The Greenhouse Effect”, J. Meteorology, 1974) who showed several problems with Lee’s analysis.