Sentences with phrase «co2 has any warming effect»

(e) How do we know man made CO2 has any warming effect?

Of course several denizens on this board have denied CO2 is a greenhouse gas (by denying the greenhouse effect) and have denied that Earth has warmed (by claiming global temperature is meaningless concept) and denied that rising CO2 has a warming effect.

I suspect CO2 has some warming effect, but I'm quite sure natural processes can cool to catastrophe.

Could you please clarify — because I have always found your little mantra about the war being over (which I now interpret as CO2 has some warming effect) and having to use pen and paper (which I interpret as writing and call my legislators) confusing.

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.

Not exact matches

«Considering the Southern Ocean absorbs something like 60 % of heat and anthropogenic CO2 that enters the ocean, this wind has a noticeable effect on global warming,» said lead author Dr Andy Hogg from the Australian National University Hub of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science.

SAVANNAH, GEORGIA — The glut of humanmade carbon dioxide (CO2) that is spurring global warming may have an unwelcome side effect for hay fever sufferers: It could help ragweed flourish and crowd out other plants, ecologists say.

El Niño — a warming of tropical Pacific Ocean waters that changes weather patterns across the globe — causes forests to dry out as rainfall patterns shift, and the occasional unusually strong «super» El Niños, like the current one, have a bigger effect on CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

The shorter - lived gas has a much stronger warming effect than CO2.

I'm not even an amateur climate scientist, but my logic tells me that if clouds have a stronger negative feedback in the Arctic, and I know (from news) the Arctic is warming faster than other areas, then it seems «forcing GHGs» (CO2, etc) may have a strong sensitivity than suggested, but this is suppressed by the cloud effect.

«In some sense, we might have competing effects going on in Antarctica where there is low - level CO2 warming but that may be swamped by the effects of ozone depletion,» he said.

The oceans have absorbed approximately one third of human - produced CO2 emissions, dampening the effects of carbon dioxide - driven greenhouse warming.

Essentially, the «father of global warming,» James Hansen, admits that near - doubling atmospheric CO2 will have negligible effect on global climate — an increment of < 1 °C.

Is there a top end to the warming trend where we have so much CO2 in the air, more does not increase the greenhouse effect any more?

China has the largest CO2 emissions today (Fig. 11A), but the global warming effect is closely proportional to cumulative emissions [190].

«While major green house gas H2O substantially warms the Earth, minor green house gases such as CO2 have little effect....

but even if the current tooo - short - to - call cooling trend reverses, and it is proved that co2 MIGHT have some limited effect on planetary warming, then the question is, how much warming?

Let me try to be more explicit: if you want to assume (or, if you prefer, conclude) that aerosols produced by the increased burning of fossil fuels after WWII had a cooling effect that essentially cancelled out the warming that would be expected as a result of the release of CO2 produced by that burning, then it's only logical to conclude that there exists a certain ratio between the warming and cooling effects produced by that same burning.

Higher levels of CO2 prior to 1940 had some role in warming at that period, because of the greenhouse effect, but are insufficient when calculated to explain all the warming.

If those aerosols canceled the warming effect of fossil fuel emissions from 1940 - 1979, as has been claimed, then they would have had the same effect prior to 1940, regardless of whether the volume of both CO2 emissions and aerosol emissions were smaller.

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-?)

With the cosmic ray effect we have ~ 0.3 C of solar warming combined with ~ 0.2 of CO2 warming, which is then offset by human - produced aerosols to yield ~ 0.3 of waring.

Unlike others, I'm not saying that because of all this, «global warming stopped in 1998 therefore CO2 has little effect».

Clearly atmospheric warming has multiple causes, including CO2 and solar changes, geothermal energy and forest fires etc and all can be at the same time, but research shows solar changes have limited effect, and CO2 is dominating in recent decades and will continue to dominate.

Another point: even if solar variability, for some magical reason, had a noticeable warming effect over the last decades, this would have to come in addition to the CO2 - effect and would not call it into question.

If you believe the warming is natural, first please explain why the increases in CO2 isn't having the effect our knowledge of physics tells us it will have.

V 323: If those aerosols canceled the warming effect of fossil fuel emissions from 1940 - 1979, as has been claimed, then they would have had the same effect prior to 1940, regardless of whether the volume of both CO2 emissions and aerosol emissions were smaller.

Oh, and we've increased CO2 by 100 ppm already (it doesn't quite have the punch of the other 100 ppm because of logarithmic effects, yadda yadda, but the court can be assured we're going to warm up by about an ice age by 2100).

If the warming effects of CO2 emission from ff were essentially neutralized after the 1940s, then one would expect that a similar neutralization would have been in effect prior to 1940.

The drought - induced decline of carbon - dense tropical forests and their replacement by lower - carbon savannas would release enormous amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere, amplifying global warming far beyond the effects of just the CO2 released by burning fossil fuels.

Imagine, however, that in this situation, one suddenly warmed the surroundings by another mechanism that had little or no effect on IR absorption by CO2.

So, if you have two identical glass greenhouses with thermally isolated mercury thermometers at equilibrium in the sunlight [One with Air at Press =P, and the 2nd w / CO2 at Press =P], and you close the blinds — you will see the thermometer in the CO2 greenhouse retain its temperature longer — not because of any «global warming» type effect, but simply because Air conducts heat to the walls of the greenhouse better than Air does.

That's a hypothesis and, arguably, a reasonable ASSOCIATION, but cause and effect has hardly been established, and I understand it's not clear whether global warming causes an increase in CO2, or vice versa.

One general result of these complexities is that CO2 has its strongest warming effect about 10 - 12 miles above the surface of the earth.

Warming of the oceans leads to increased vertical stratification (decreased mixing between the different levels in the oceans), which would reduce CO2 uptake, in effect, reducing the oceanic volume available to CO2 absorption from the atmosphere.

Regarding the issue of liability for the effects of global warming, I would like to point out that we're (USA & developed nations population mostly) the ones who burned the fossil fuels to CO2, not Peabody Coal or Exxon / Mobil.

Particle Pollution's Cooling Effect... Plus Death Interestingly, this particle pollution has the opposite effect on the climate as does the ship's carbon emissions: The particles have a cooling effect that is at least five times greater than the warming effect of the CO2 emisEffect... Plus Death Interestingly, this particle pollution has the opposite effect on the climate as does the ship's carbon emissions: The particles have a cooling effect that is at least five times greater than the warming effect of the CO2 emiseffect on the climate as does the ship's carbon emissions: The particles have a cooling effect that is at least five times greater than the warming effect of the CO2 emiseffect that is at least five times greater than the warming effect of the CO2 emiseffect of the CO2 emissions.

In regards to: «Regarding the issue of liability for the effects of global warming, I would like to point out that we're (USA & developed nations population mostly) the ones who burned the fossil fuels to CO2, not Peabody Coal or Exxon / Mobil.»

Brian Dodge (359) Says: -LCB- Regarding the issue of liability for the effects of global warming, I would like to point out that we're (USA & developed nations population mostly) the ones who burned the fossil fuels to CO2, not Peabody Coal or Exxon / Mobil.

This is a peer reviewed paper by respected scientists who are saying that aerosol forcing means that the majority of the warming caused by existing co2 emission has effectively been masked thus far, and that as aerosols remain in the atmosphere for far shorter a duration of time than co2, we will have already most likely crossed the 2 degree threshold that the G8 politicians have been discussing this week once the cooling effect of aerosols dissipate.

Let's see... many models show that aerosols could have been artificially keeping the world's average surface temperature cooler by about 3 - 5 degrees C from 1900 - 2000 --(sulfate aerosols certainly have some certifiable cooling effects cancelling out the warming effects of CO2).

So, if you have two identical glass greenhouses with thermally isolated mercury thermometers at equilibrium in the sunlight [One with Air at Press =P, and the 2nd w / CO2 at Press =P], and you close the blinds — you will see the thermometer in the CO2 greenhouse retain its temperature longer — not because of any «global warming» type effect, but simply because Air conducts heat to the walls of the greenhouse better than CO2 does.

For example, we have done many GCM simulations showing that tropical deforestation — at least averaged over the tropical land masses — induces warming that is greater than the effects of CO2.

Bye the way physics guy, increased CO2 warms earth some, leading to more water vapor which has a greater greenhouse effect than the CO2 as such.

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.

Recall, too, that since the relationship between CO2 (or any other GHG) and warming is logarithmic, the earlier increases have a greater effect than you would think.

Warming must occur below the tropopause to increase the net LW flux out of the tropopause to balance the tropopause - level forcing; there is some feedback at that point as the stratosphere is «forced» by the fraction of that increase which it absorbs, and a fraction of that is transfered back to the tropopause level — for an optically thick stratosphere that could be significant, but I think it may be minor for the Earth as it is (while CO2 optical thickness of the stratosphere alone is large near the center of the band, most of the wavelengths in which the stratosphere is not transparent have a more moderate optical thickness on the order of 1 (mainly from stratospheric water vapor; stratospheric ozone makes a contribution over a narrow wavelength band, reaching somewhat larger optical thickness than stratospheric water vapor)(in the limit of an optically thin stratosphere at most wavelengths where the stratosphere is not transparent, changes in the net flux out of the stratosphere caused by stratospheric warming or cooling will tend to be evenly split between upward at TOA and downward at the tropopause; with greater optically thickness over a larger fraction of optically - significant wavelengths, the distribution of warming or cooling within the stratosphere will affect how such a change is distributed, and it would even be possible for stratospheric adjustment to have opposite effects on the downward flux at the tropopause and the upward flux aWarming must occur below the tropopause to increase the net LW flux out of the tropopause to balance the tropopause - level forcing; there is some feedback at that point as the stratosphere is «forced» by the fraction of that increase which it absorbs, and a fraction of that is transfered back to the tropopause level — for an optically thick stratosphere that could be significant, but I think it may be minor for the Earth as it is (while CO2 optical thickness of the stratosphere alone is large near the center of the band, most of the wavelengths in which the stratosphere is not transparent have a more moderate optical thickness on the order of 1 (mainly from stratospheric water vapor; stratospheric ozone makes a contribution over a narrow wavelength band, reaching somewhat larger optical thickness than stratospheric water vapor)(in the limit of an optically thin stratosphere at most wavelengths where the stratosphere is not transparent, changes in the net flux out of the stratosphere caused by stratospheric warming or cooling will tend to be evenly split between upward at TOA and downward at the tropopause; with greater optically thickness over a larger fraction of optically - significant wavelengths, the distribution of warming or cooling within the stratosphere will affect how such a change is distributed, and it would even be possible for stratospheric adjustment to have opposite effects on the downward flux at the tropopause and the upward flux awarming or cooling will tend to be evenly split between upward at TOA and downward at the tropopause; with greater optically thickness over a larger fraction of optically - significant wavelengths, the distribution of warming or cooling within the stratosphere will affect how such a change is distributed, and it would even be possible for stratospheric adjustment to have opposite effects on the downward flux at the tropopause and the upward flux awarming or cooling within the stratosphere will affect how such a change is distributed, and it would even be possible for stratospheric adjustment to have opposite effects on the downward flux at the tropopause and the upward flux at TOA).

Your estimates of climate sensitivity come from the IPCC, which assumes that aerosols will continue to provide a very strong cooling effect that offsets about half of the warming from CO2, but you are talking about time frames in which we have stopped burning fossil fuels, so is it appropriate to continue to assume the presence of cooling aerosols at these future times?

So while the sensitivity of CO2 / warming may be an important (though somewhat uncertain) matter, so too is how sensitive nature is in emitting GHGs in response to the warming (& to the concomitant GW effects), and this it seems is a lot more uncertain and has a lot more potential for danger... like some sleeping monster we keep poking.

However, albedo modification would only temporarily mask the warming effect of greenhouse gases and would not address atmospheric concentrations of CO2 or related impacts such as ocean acidification.