Sentences with phrase «co2 gets to the surface»

I have to check the book, but I think the CO2 gets to the surface even without the pumped upwelling.

Not exact matches

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).

Other factors would include: — albedo shifts (both from ice > water, and from increased biological activity, and from edge melt revealing more land, and from more old dust coming to the surface...); — direct effect of CO2 on ice (the former weakens the latter); — increasing, and increasingly warm, rain fall on ice; — «stuck» weather systems bringing more and more warm tropical air ever further toward the poles; — melting of sea ice shelf increasing mobility of glaciers; — sea water getting under parts of the ice sheets where the base is below sea level; — melt water lubricating the ice sheet base; — changes in ocean currents -LRB-?)

They don't have to be scientists to understand that the higher energy waves of visible light from the Sun can penetrate through CO2, H2O, CH4, NOZ etal in the atmosphere, but the lower energy radiation of infra - red waves, from Earth's surface, have problems getting back out through these molecules, and a new energy balance has to be established in the form of rising temperature.

A thermometer on the surface of the Earth, exposed to the Sun, will not get hotter just because you increase the concentration of CO2 between it and the Sun.

Co2 can't cause such a flow, it will off course heat the surface first and flow of heat to the sub-surface will lag over years, decades and even centuries (not sure why 21 years gets a special mention?)

If the sun suddenly shut off, the earth would cool down quickly, and get so cold that the greenhouse gases (most, if not all; certainly water vapor and CO2 - methane freezes at 91 degrees k or -182 deg C) that slow the loss of heat to space would condense out, making the equilibrium surface temperature even colder.

The question is how much CO2 gets transported to the depths (where it would indeed be difficult to sample it) and how much stays near the surface.

What I'm thinking is that the primary way that the energy captured by CO2 gets dissipated is not radiation, partly back to the surface, but primarily upwards convention as the kinetic transfer between gas molecules moves the heat rapidly throughout the atmosphere.

This would cause most of surface to become dark with little sunlight getting to surface - the atmosphere would cool and CO2 would snow or rain out.

If you take surface Tmin and compare to SST, you get the ~ 1.6 to 2.0 gain but that started well before CO2 was a factor.

The anthropogenic influence on atmospheric CO2 is about as solid as science gets, supported by multiple lines of evidence — simple accounting, ocean acidification, ocean CO2 increasing at the surface (by Salby it would have to be decreasing), decreasing atmospheric O2, isotopic balances, etc..

The immediate question is how much CO2 dissolves in the oceans and how long it takes to get from surface to deep waters.

In consequence of that absorption of CO2 from atmosphere to sea surface sinks gets slower which makes more CO2 from total CO2 emissions stay in atmosphere; e.g. comments https://judithcurry.com/2011/08/04/carbon-cycle-questions/#comment-198992; and https://judithcurry.com/2013/01/16/hansen-on-the-standstill/#comment-287036.

In the former, we try to suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and get it back in the ground; or we shunt CO2 aside at the smokestack before it gets to the atmosphere, and bury or store it; or we promote algae blooms that absorb CO2 at the ocean surface and then die off and carry it to the ocean floor.

That the climate models are remarkably close to the observed temperature trend over the recent decade, taking into consideration all relevant factors, is an explicit demonstration that we can get this temporary surface temperature slowdown even when the Earth's climate sensitivity is around 3 °C per doubling of CO2.

I'm not able to find any peer reviewed papers which derive this logarithmic CO2 versus temperature rise formula from basic physics, nor am I able to find papers which prove that climate sensitivity is a global constant regardless of local surface temperatures; seems counterintuitive to me; maybe I should get a PhD too!

So how come the OLW radiation in the CO2 absorption bands from the surface manages to get unhindered to some altitude, then gets absorbed, re-radiates half down towards the surface, again unhindered and half towards space, again unhindered?

Others accept (correctly) that that is unlikely due to the thermal inertia of our oceans and their cooling effect on the air so they propose an «ocean skin'theory whereby warming of the topmost molecules on the ocean surface from extra downwelling infra red radiation from extra human CO2 in the air is supposed to reduce the natural energy flow from sea to air so that the oceans get warmer and then heat the air and kill us off that way.

My take is that the radiation in the H2O and CO2 absorption bands shuttles back and forth between being absorbed and re-emitted by the Surface and Atmosphere (where about half heads in the direction of Space), all the while transforming a bit to the ~ 10μm region, which gets a free pass to Space, with each transaction.

«But if we don't — there's a guy down the hall, I never knew what he did, I mean, he's a chemist and I don't talk to chemists, and then he came and he gave a lecture to our conservation course this summer about the standardization of the pH of the surface ocean globally, which he's in charge of, and they measured a 0.1 decrease in pH and it's exactly what they're expecting from the increase in CO2, and you can plot the graph and you know when you're going to get there.»

That happens partly through «new» absorption of radiation that more or less used to escape directly from the surface, as well as absorption and re-emission of radiation that used to get absorbed and re-emitted at lower layers, but now (at higher CO2) does so at higher layers.

I dislike very much the notion that one could suddenly double the amount of CO2, get a «radiative forcing» at the Tropopause, and then have this heat up that area, and «work its way down» to the surface (IPCC AR4 WG1 Fig2 - 2).

In a relatively dry atmosphere, CO2 is not anywhere near saturated and so one will get an increase in the downward IR flux to the surface.

Without any GHG no H2o, CO2 etc the sun would essentially have free rein with no absorbtion, so surface would get 340 w / m2 thus raising up to 278 K or 5 C to start.

The change in CO2 itself has very little to do with this moist adiabatic response; you get essentially the same temperature response if you just just prescribe and then warm the surface temperature.