Sentences with phrase «co2 at the surface»

Although some lakes can also absorb CO2 at their surfaces similar to the way oceans do, the increases in these other sources of organic and inorganic carbon are likely the dominant factor, says Scott Higgins, a research scientist at the International Institute for Sustainable Development's Experimental Lakes Area, a natural laboratory of 58 small lakes in Ontario.

However, even the more ponderous mixing in the lower stratosphere is pretty efficient in comparison to the time it takes to remove CO2 at the surface, so I doubt that the altitude of the source is a very significant effect for CO2.

But again, I have to ask a question that you have not answered: How does the heat trapped by CO2 at the surface skin warm the subsurface ocean waters since it is widely acknowledged that the infrared heat from CO2 can't penetrate into the ocean itself?

Those chalk deposits were the result of sinking plankton that produced calcium carbonate shells like foraminifera and coccolithophorids, As discussed in Natural Cycles of Ocean Acidification, the creation of calcium carbonate shells pumps alkalinity to depth but produces CO2 at the surface thus adding to higher concentrations of atmospheric CO2.

If it were true then the partial pressure of CO2 at the surface would be different than the volumetric mixing ratio times the surface pressure.

If CO2 has a warming effect, the mars, which has a greater partial pressure of CO2 at the surface than does earth, should be warm, but it is not.

The partial pressure of CO2 at the surface ocean is proportional to that in the atmosphere, consequently more CO2 is taken up by the ocean as atmospheric CO2 levels rise.

Not exact matches

The great fear commonly associated with carbon sequestration is that trapped CO2 might suddenly escape to the surface with deadly consequences, as happened in 1986 at Lake Nyos in Cameroon.

It represents the warming at the earth's surface that is expected after the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere doubles and the climate subsequently stabilizes (reaches equilibrium).

Specifically, liquid CO2 is heavier than the water above it at 8,850 feet (2,700 meters) or more under the surface, meaning any leaks would never bubble back into the atmosphere.

That instead, going cold turkey to net zero emissions, the surface would continue to absorb CO2 and the temperature would in fact fall or at least stay the same?

My main problem with that study is that the weather models don't use any forcings at all — no changes in ozone, CO2, volcanos, aerosols, solar etc. — and so while some of the effects of the forcings might be captured (since the weather models assimilate satellite data etc.), there is no reason to think that they get all of the signal — particularly for near surface effects (tropospheric ozone for instance).

There is also a contribution of excess atmospheric CO2 absorption introduced to deep - water masses from dense, cold CO2 - rich surface waters at downwelling sites (e.g., North Atlantic), which then move through the oceans via meridional overturning circulation.

The oceans are great at absorbing carbon dioxide (CO2) from the air, but when their deep waters are brought to the surface, the oceans themselves can be a source of this prevalent greenhouse gas.

Also, at higher CO2 levels, the concentrations of bacterioneuston, marine bacteria inhabiting the surface, increased.

«Based on our observations in the sea - surface microlayer, we think that this could be very important as it may imply a positive feedback on atmospheric CO2 from oceanic sources, that is, from microbial metabolism at the air - sea interface.»

This chemical weathering process is too slow to damp out shorter - term fluctuations, and there are some complexities — glaciation can enhance the mechanical erosion that provides surface area for chemical weathering (some of which may be realized after a time delay — ie when the subsequent warming occurs — dramatically snow in a Snowball Earth scenario, where the frigid conditions essentially shut down all chemical weathering, allowing CO2 to build up to the point where it thaws the equatorial region, at which point runaway albedo feedback drives the Earth into a carbonic acid sauna, which ends via rapid carbonate rock formation), while lower sea level may increase the oxidation of organic C in sediments but also provide more land surface for erosion... etc..

«The first is that the thick CO2 atmosphere is what would have allowed liquid water to exist and thereby allowed life to exist at the surface.

Other theories have suggested that geological forces such as mountain building have, at different times in the planet's history, introduced large amounts of new material to the Earth's surface, and weathering of that material has drawn CO2 out of the atmosphere.

Indeed, uptake of CO2 by surface reservoirs has at least kept pace with the rapid growth of emissions [187].

To better understand the interaction between the CO2 frost and the surface materials, Cédric Pilorget, researcher1 at the Institut d'Astrophysique Spatiale (CNRS / Université Paris - Sud) and François Forget, CNRS scientist at the Laboratoire de météorologie dynamique2 (UPMC / ENS Paris / CNRS / Ecole polytechnique) have developed a numerical model to simulate the environment on a slope.

Under normal conditions upwelling of cold CO2 - rich water from depth leads to outgassing when upwelled water warms at the surface.

When it is assumed that the CO2 content of the atmosphere is doubled and statistical thermal equilibrium is achieved, the more realistic of the modeling efforts predict a global surface warming of between 2 °C and 3.5 °C, with greater increases at high latitudes.

Vigorous convective mixing in the deep tropics also dilutes changes in near - surface CO2 much more than at higher latitudes, so low - altitude sampling contains relatively less information about carbon sources and sinks.

Unless CO2 at temperatures near the surface has a reasonable population of vibrationally excited molecules then the heat generated by IR absorbtion can not be redistributed radiationally.

... Polar amplification explains in part why Greenland Ice Sheet and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet appear to be highly sensitive to relatively small increases in CO2 concentration and global mean temperature... Polar amplification occurs if the magnitude of zonally averaged surface temperature change at high latitudes exceeds the globally averaged temperature change, in response to climate forcings and on time scales greater than the annual cycle.

What I wrote was that the historical record does not rule out the possibility that at current temperatures and cloud covers, a future increase in CO2 or surface temperature may increase cloud cover.

I wrote: «CO2 has been shown in laboratory conditions to increase radiative forcing at the surface.»

Greenhouse gases (like CO2, CH4 or water) absorb and re-radiate infra - red (IR) radiation that is emitted from the planet's surface at rates that depend on the temperature (the Stefan - Boltzmann law).

7) I already pointed out in my post that even immediately there are natual mechanisms that come into play that immobilise the njected CO2 - as demonstrated by leaving the injection boreholes open to surface at West Pearl Queen, Frio and Recopol.

There is a difference between peaks and valleys in noisy processes (1998 surface air temperature, 2007 record minimum ice, or shipping at a few small areas on the edges of the Arctic ocean) and CO2 forcing driven trends, especially when different measures.

The troposphere is currently cooling radiatively at about 2K / day, and adding CO2 to the atmosphere generally increases the radiative cooling (primarily through increases in water vapor, though how these details play out also depend on the details of the surface budget).

Adding CO2 does not (at least not before the climate response, which is generally stratospheric cooling and surface and tropospheric warming for increasing greenhouse gases) decrease the radiation to space in the central portion of the band because at those wavelengths, CO2 is so opaque that much or most radiation to space is coming from the stratosphere, and adding CO2 increases the heights from which radiation is able to reach space, and the stratospheric temperatures generally increase with increasing height.

CO2 reduces the rate at which the atmosphere loses its energy to space via infrared radiation, which in turn reduces the flow of energy from the Earth's surface to the atmosphere.

We highlight that the Arctic Ocean surface becomes undersaturated with respect to aragonite at even lower CO2 concentration (than the Southern Ocean).

Transient climate sensitivity: The global mean surface - air temperature achieved when atmospheric CO2 concentrations achieve a doubling over pre-industrial CO2 levels increasing at the assumed rate of one percent per year, compounded.

The combination of observation - based estimates... with NCAR CSM1.4 - carbon model projection indicates that 10 % of the surface water along the investigated Arctic transect will become undersaturated for at least one month of the year when atmospheric CO2 exceeds 409 ppm.

Combine with Co2 warming the surface and it can just so happen that the two effects cancel at the surface for a «pause» while the wind / current driven heating of the subsurface causes extra heating in the subsurface.

But both CO2 and solar - caused surface + tropospheric warming will cause at least some similar latitudinal and seasonal patterns of change within the troposphere + surface via the patterns of albedo feedback and lapse rate feedback.

But even if CO2 were to stop increasing tomorrow, that extra 100ppm will remain there for many, perhaps hundreds of years, continuing to add warmth, and as the ocean slowly warms to equilibrium then more of the warming will be felt at the surface.

These are the kinds of very complex space weather discussions that need to occur, and at the end of the day CO2 is DEPENDANT on these solar events as CO2 is ELECTRICAL from a conductivity standpoint in the oceans, connected to surface lows and outgassing and ocean surface ion counts.

Can CO2 at ~ 1 km, ~ 6C colder than the surface and the earth's brightness temperature, not absorb any of the earth's IR radiation?

The ocean has started to take up net CO2 from the atmosphere through gas exchange at the sea surface: because the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is now higher than in the surface ocean, there is net flux of CO2 into the sea.

Since the 155 W / m2 GHE is the GHE forcing based on the present climate (in the sense that removing all GH agents (only their LW opacity, keeping solar radiation properties constant) results in a forcing of -155 W / m2 at TOA for the present climate, and we know that without any GHE, in the isothermal blackbody surface approximation, the temperature will fall approximately 33 K without any non-Planck feedbacks), it can be compared to smaller climate forcings made in the context of the present climate (such as a doubling CO2.)

Before allowing the temperature to respond, we can consider the forcing at the tropopause (TRPP) and at TOA, both reductions in net upward fluxes (though at TOA, the net upward LW flux is simply the OLR); my point is that even without direct solar heating above the tropopause, the forcing at TOA can be less than the forcing at TRPP (as explained in detail for CO2 in my 348, but in general, it is possible to bring the net upward flux at TRPP toward zero but even with saturation at TOA, the nonzero skin temperature requires some nonzero net upward flux to remain — now it just depends on what the net fluxes were before we made the changes, and whether the proportionality of forcings at TRPP and TOA is similar if the effect has not approached saturation at TRPP); the forcing at TRPP is the forcing on the surface + troposphere, which they must warm up to balance, while the forcing difference between TOA and TRPP is the forcing on the stratosphere; if the forcing at TRPP is larger than at TOA, the stratosphere must cool, reducing outward fluxes from the stratosphere by the same total amount as the difference in forcings between TRPP and TOA.

In this case the CO2 concentration is instantaneously quadrupled and kept constant for 150 years of simulation, and both equilibrium climate sensitivity and RF are diagnosed from a linear fit of perturbations in global mean surface temperature to the instantaneous radiative imbalance at the TOA.

For hurricanes, then, you'd want to ask what the sea surface temperature, subsurface ocean heat content, and atmospheric water vapor content would have been if, say, fossil fuel use had been eliminated 100 years ago, and atmospheric CO2 remained at about 300 ppm.

Thus, if the CO2 band center is sufficiently close to saturation at TRPP, the forcing per doubling will be smaller at TOA, implying some cooling of the space in between (equal to the difference in forcing between TRPP and TOA; the climatic response will, via cooling, reduce the fluxes out of the stratosphere by the same amount; some fraction of this can go into the troposphere, and since it is a reduced downward flux, it cancels out some of the initial TRPP forcing, resulting in a smaller TRPP forcing (the forcing with stratospheric adjustment) that the surface + troposphere must respond to.

CO2's effect of stimulating plant growth and increasing plant tolerance of aridity contributed to revegetating large areas of land that were desert at the LGM, compounding the effects of an increase in atmospheric humidity, reduced land / ocean surface ocean ration, and increased warmth, all of which combined caused the reduction of airborne dust and atmosperic albedo.

Ray: «The IR flux from the warmer surface excites much of the CO2 — much more than would be excited at thermal equilibrium at the temperature of the atmospheric layer where the photon is absorbed.»