Sentences with phrase «co2 absorbs more heat»

At 0h48 Lindzen says there is no doubt that CO2 absorbs more heat than O2 Agrees that Human activity has substantially increased CO2 At 0h49 Lindzen, when responding to increasing max high temperature frequency, says that instrumentation changed dramatically during the [instrument record] period.

Not exact matches

Since anthropogenic emitted CO2 comes out of a power plant stacks / vehicle exhausts at an elevated temperature (due to the trivial manmade waste heat energy), and then cools down to near equilibrium with the rest of the atmosphere, why would this new CO2 then absorb more energy and heatup again?

CO2 (and some other gases) in the atmosphere are however more opaque to LWIR; they absorb that a chunk of that outgoing radiation and re-radiate it in all directions — so that a fraction less than half is re-radiated downwards; which has the effect of slowing the transfer of heat (by radiation) out of the atmosphere.

The UP is not only absorbing more heat from below, but we've added an IR emitter, CO2, to the UP layers, and so it can rid itself of more heat.»

* increasing CO2 concentration of the opaque (lower) layer of the troposphere absorbs more LWR, which decreases the heating of the upper layers and eventually produces a cooling.

A second alternative acknowledges an unchanging OLR, but posits that less is now entering the stratosphere in wavelengths absorbable by CO2 because a heated surface is now radiating more IR to space in wavelengths where CO2 does not absorb («window regions»).

To summarize this concept, do you agree that when a layer's temperature is due to heat absorbed by CO2 alone, more CO2 will increase the temperature, whereas if the temperature includes heating from something else as well, more CO2 can help rid the layer of that extra heat?

For example: 1) plants giving off net CO2 in hot conditions (r / t aborbing)-- see: http://www.climateark.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=46488 2) plants dying out due to heat & drought & wild fires enhanced by GW (reducing or cutting short their uptake of CO2 & releasing CO2 in the process) 3) ocean methane clathrates melting, giving off methane 4) permafrost melting & giving off methane & CO2 5) ice & snow melting, uncovering dark surfaces that absorb more heat 6) the warming slowing the thermohaline ocean conveyor & its up - churning of nutrients — reducing marine plant life & that carbon sink.

CO2 traps heat According to radiative physics and decades of laboratory measurements, increased CO2 in the atmosphere is expected / predicted to absorb more infrared radiation as it escapes back out to space.

For instance, the long - term warming effects of CO2 and other greenhouse gases are largely buffered by the ocean, which absorbs more than 90 percent of the excess heat caused by human emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

If this is true, then is there a balancing equilibrium, more CO2 means more heat absorbed by day, but (equally?)

CO2 absorbs much more heat than O&N, during the day — CO2 also absorbs much more coldness during the night.

We deny that additional CO2 will absorb any more infra red or heat.

Meaning twice the CO2 concentration could only absorb ~ 100 % of the energy in 5m instead of 10m, no more or less heat is preserved in the atmosphere, depending on CO2.

But if a little more energy is absorbed, then CO2 is acting like a little black soot in the atmosphere and it will, in turn, radiate more toward space as a black box would from the added heat and this might compensate for the change in albedo.

For he understood that even if the CO2 in the atmosphere did already absorb all the heat radiation passing through, adding more gas would change the height in the atmosphere where the absorption took place.

That unusual extreme warming is called Arctic Amplification that CO2 driven models suggest is the result of absorbing more heat because lost sea ice allows darker ocean waters to absorb more heat.

And, doesn't minimal atmospheric co2 absorb all the light at its own bandwidth anyway, so that increasing it won't hold in more heat anyway?

Pielke seniors thing is that land use changes leadto albedo changes which lead to more heat absorbed, so actually the warming isn't much to do with CO2 and so there isn't much of a problem.

As obvious on figures 6 - A and 6 - B, Ttop and Ptop are determined by the water vapour that radiates over some 1900 cm - 1 much more than the 40 cm - 1 of the tropospheric CO2 near 614 cm - 1 and 718 cm - 1.; stratospheric radiation to the cosmos is not very important because the cooling of each layer is exactly equal to its heating mostly by UV absorbed by Ozone.

CO2 and H2O vapour emit vastly more heat than they absorb because they are somewhere between +30 C and -55 C, depending on the height, and deep space is about -270 C, as always the heat flows from hot to cold, the bigger the temperature gradient the greater the heat flow.

If more DLR from more CO2 enters the skin layer, less heat from absorbed SWR will need to flow upwards, and the ocean will get warmer.

It is an empirical fact that adding CO2 to a volume of atmosphere in the lab will absorb more heat than the same volume without the added CO2.

Water vapour absorbs over 3 x more heat in the first 120m than the total potential of CO2 to its extinction point.

(BTW, the skeptics like to game the Beer's Law thing — «existing CO2 already absorbs all the IR from the ground» — forgetting that absorbed heat has to be re-emitted, and more CO2 shifts up the equilibrium temperature.

Whether there is 0.03 % or 0.04 % of CO2 in the atmosphere only influences how often the photons get absorbed and re-radiated on their way to space — an increase in CO2 delays the process a little but does not change it fundamentally and * Does * * Not * * Trap * * Heat * any more than a sieve traps water.

As I understand AGW, the theory goes that added CO2 combines with an energy photon (ie the greenhouse effect) to warm the world, & heat the air which results in more water vapor which absorbs more photons which results in Man caused warming feedback.

Doesn't that then mean that there are no more photons to be absorbed by the added water vapor produced as a result of the added heat from the CO2 associated warming?

But let's put these unconventional views aside for a moment, and accept that certain atmospheric gases (e.g., CO2, for one) DO absorb more heat radiation than their more neutral cohorts (e.g., nitrogen and oxygen mostly).

I think those 3 wavelengths of heat were absorbed at around 360 ppm which is what the CO2 levels were about 18 years ago or so, and adding more CO2 has done nothing to capture more heat.