Sentences with phrase «co2 has little effect»

That CO2 has little effect on planetary temperatures, and there is no climate crisis.

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

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

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

Increasing CO2 has little to no effect «While major green house gas H2O substantially warms the Earth, minor green house gases such as CO2 have little effect....

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

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

Not exact matches

Reading breathless media reports about CO2 «pollution» and about minimizing our carbon footprints, one might think that the earth can not have too little CO2, as Simpson thought one couldn't be too thin — a view which was also overstated, as we have seen from the sad effects of anorexia in so many young women.

The idea being raising cattle produces so much methane (which is a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2) that the primary contribution to greenhouse gases is actually the cow itself, not shipping, so eating local beef vs generic feed lot beef has little effect on the environmental impact.

The Hansen et al study (2004) on target atmospheric CO2 and climate sensitivity is quite clear on this topic: equilibrium responses would double the GCM - based estimates, with very little to be said about transient effects.

This effect is probably significant but it's slow - acting and the CO2 self - feedback would only be fully realized when very little of the original CO2 pulse was left in the atmosphere.

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.

Note also that the added LW opacity due to the CO2 increase will have little effect in the troposphere where convective energy transport is active.

a) atmospheric CO2 from human activity is a major bause of observed warming in the 1980's and 1990's, c) that warming is overstated due to a number of factors including solar effects and measurement skew d) the data going back 150 years is of little reliability because it is clustered so heavily in northeast america and western europe rather than being global e) the global climate has been significantly shifting over the last thousand years, over the last ten thousand years, and over the last hundred thousand years; atmospheric CO2 levels did not drive those changes, and some of them were rapid.

FSC certification has little effect on this figure, since shelterwood and longer rotations do not really mitigate the huge releases of CO2 that accompany «harvest».

A low sensitivity implies additional atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on global climate.

The only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the above is that CO2, volcanic outbreaks and El Nino events have little or no effect on the background temperature trends in stratosphere and troposphere because of the ability of the Earth system to change the height of the tropopause and the size and location of the permanent climate zones to change the speed of energy flow through the Earth system and thereby negate any such effects.

Maybe because CO2 forcing is logarithmic after all, and has very little effect at this point.

I would say its not, especially since the effects that are causing antarctic sea ice to increase have little to do with CO2 at the present time.

Difference between nighttime lows and daytime highs decreasing — no they aren't Warming of the planet since 1880 — same trend since LIA 40 % rise in Atmospheric CO2 since ~ 1800 — has little effect Underlying physics of the Greenhouse effect — you don't appear to understand them, and neither do modellers, which is why their predictions have been so wrong

You know, for a little while there I even thought that Bob T himself (who is undoubtedly an interesting fellow) might even be sharp enough to appreciate that the coupling of increased atmospheric CO2 and increased seawater N nutrient levels to produce enhanced cyanobacterial productivity in near surface layers of the oceans would also produce the weather - moderating effects listed above (particularly in the areas where tropical storms are «brewed»).

Whether or not human CO2 has contributed to sea - level rise, and whether or not it will continue to, or make things worse, mitigation will have very little effect in the near and mid term, and the problem of «natural» sea level rise will still exist, regardless of what we do or do not do.

Consequently, underwater volcanoes have little effect on atmospheric CO2 levels.

«The human impact on global climate is small, and any warming that may occur as a result of human carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gas emissions is likely to have little effect on global temperatures, the cryosphere (ice - covered areas), hydrosphere (oceans, lakes, and rivers), or weather.

Upthread, I've suggested reasons why the CO2 effect is relatively little influenced by chaotic factors, and why anthropogenic warming can be predicted with reasonable accuracy independent of initial conditions.

And there is little reason to assume another 100 ppm CO2 would have any more effect than what has occurred over the last century.

In other words, temperature controls CO2 levels on a yearly time - scale, and according to Salby, man - made emissions have little effect.

«Why does the integrated effect of CO2 have so little effect on the total temperature profile?

CO2 has very little effect upon most of the energy of Sunlight reaching the surface.

But, even if it was so, it would be normal variation (+ some effect from CO2, Lindzer admits that much) in a real world of 6.8 billion people and a global socio - ecological system with little inbuilt resilience.

And another thing, when we look at the past 100 + years of temperature change, even when we have to try to peer through grossly mis - adjusted warmist data and a growing urban heat island effect, we see little discernible changes in the rate of early 20th century (low CO2) and later 20th century (higher CO2) change.

Also James is quite correct, even if we all agreed (which will be around about when Hell freezes over) that a little extra CO2 was a problem, none of the measures proposed, including having the EU commit to a 30 % cut instead of 20 %, will have any measurable effect and are therefore pointless.

The net effect on Earth Venus and Mars from CO2 as a gas is virtually identical demonstrating the limited effect from CO2 beacuse the 14.77 micron band gets so close to saturation by just 300ppmv with further increases like the 950,000 ppmv high pressure concentration on Venus having very little additional effect.

One think tank, The Heartland Institute, led the effort to debunk the hoax, sponsoring six international conferences featuring scientists and others who presented papers that demonstrated that 0.038 percent of CO2 in the atmosphere had little or no «greenhouse» effect on the Earth's climate or weather events.

Not only that, but if rising CO2 levels were responsible for the decline of sea ice and implied effects on polar bears since 1979 (when CO2 levels were around 340 ppm), why has spring ice extent been so variable since 1989 (when the first big decline occurred) but so little changed overall since then?

So the first step in understanding the climates of Venus, Earth, and Mars, is the relative amounts of Greenhouse gases in their atmospheres: Venus has too much, Mars too little, and Earth just the right amount (in fact, water vapor, which is one percent of our atmosphere, dominates most of our Greenhouse effect — but additional CO2 can dramatically change the amount of Greenhouse effect).

I just published a post on my blog about the interaction of CO2 and average global temps over geologic time and it seems that CO2 has had very little effect on those temps.

Little Miss Sunshine forgot that CO2 has a log sensitivity so that early increases prior to 1950 had a significant effect on global warming.

Further that such little observational data that we have, indicates that the effect of adding more CO2 to the atmosphere with respect to global temperatures, is somewhere between very small and negligible, then we would be making real progress.

If CO2 can't show its effect after 70 and 140 years then it is very likely just nonsense given that we have been coming out of the little ice age.

If the Earth was a simple rock with no water, but a Nitrogen atmosphere with, say, 250ppm of CO2, the greenhouse effects of the CO2 would ensure that the atmosphere was at least a little warm.

I find it profoundly telling that we could create some very complex assumptions as to CO2 levels and tree rings and the like to the point of minutia and trivia, but have little to say about the subsequent effects of our actions beyond temp and CO2 levels.

A denier says that CO2 has little or no warming effect.

A problem that arises in the context of attributing any effect to CO2 is that since the end of the Little Ice Age, a natural warming has possibly increased the temperature monotonically, anthropogenic CO2 has increased monotonically, and deforestation and urbanization have increased monotonically.

Further, air has little heat capacity and the wavelength of re-radiated radiation from CO2 is such that it can not effectively penetrate the oceans (depth of penetration about 10 microns) and at most it simply boils off a small layer of the ocean which probably has a net cooling effect.

One could say Denier tend to be satisfied to say CO2 has little or no effect upon global temperature, whereas Believers are tend to impatient for their world which might become 10 C warmer.

One can see how little heat trapping effect CO2 has when one considers night temperatures on a cold, dry and clear night, or for that matter night time dessert temperatures.

E.g., research assumes greenhouse gas emissions cause warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause»... carbon sequestration in soil is important for mitigating global climate change» (4a) No position Does not address or mention the cause of global warming (4b) Uncertain Expresses position that human's role on recent global warming is uncertain / undefined «While the extent of human - induced global warming is inconclusive...» (5) Implicit rejection Implies humans have had a minimal impact on global warming without saying so explicitly E.g., proposing a natural mechanism is the main cause of global warming»... anywhere from a major portion to all of the warming of the 20th century could plausibly result from natural causes according to these results» (6) Explicit rejection without quantification Explicitly minimizes or rejects that humans are causing global warming»... the global temperature record provides little support for the catastrophic view of the greenhouse effect» (7) Explicit rejection with quantification Explicitly states that humans are causing less than half of global warming «The human contribution to the CO2 content in the atmosphere and the increase in temperature is negligible in comparison with other sources of carbon dioxide emission»»

Obviously, CO2 is having little effect on sea - level.

Giaever is either arguing that CO2 is a visible gas (it is not) and the fact that you can't see it means there is too little in the atmosphere to have a significant warming effect, or that only visible gases can warm the planet, or some other similarly misinformed assertion.