Sentences with phrase «co2 is at its highest levels»

That's when CO2 is at its highest levels — and when when the floods come.

If CO2 forces temperature so strongly, then why did the NH freeze solid at the end of the Eemian while CO2 was at the high levels?

geologyjim says: January 3, 2013 at 8:52 pm T always begins to decline just when CO2 is at its highest level T always begins to rise just when CO2 is at its lowest level.

And of course, CO2 is at the highest levels during any interglacial of the past 800,000 years at least.

Not exact matches

When the fish grew up in fresh water and seawater with high concentrations of CO2, they lost weight at double the rate of fish that were only exposed to salt water with higher CO2 levels.

Part of the reason it took longer to recognize the impact of CO2 is because adult fish tend to be more capable of handling higher levels of acidity, said Colin Brauner, a zoology professor at UBC and co-author of the study.

So, we're talking about this period 3.5 million years ago, this is the middle Pleistocene, and that's where the CO2 concentrations were round about 400 ppm; and if we want to look at CO2 concentrations considerably higher than that, we're going to go much deeper in time, and then we're really going into periods where sea level was even higher.

In this study in Timothy grass, researchers led by environmental health scientist Christine Rogers of the UMass Amherst School of Public Health and Health Sciences (SPHHS) determined the interactive effects of CO2 and ozone at projected higher levels on pollen production and concentrations of a Timothy grass pollen protein that is a major human allergen.

CO2 levels are projected to be 2.5 times higher in the oceans by the end of this century, which is causing the ocean to acidify at a rate unprecedented for 300 million years.

The amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the air is now at its highest level in human history, largely because of coal - burning power plants and vehicle emissions.

The ice core data also shows that CO2 and methane levels have been remarkably stable in Antarctica — varying between 300 ppm and 180 ppm — over that entire period and that shifts in levels of these gases took at least 800 years, compared to the roughly 100 years in which humans have increased atmospheric CO2 levels to their present high.

Once atmospheric CO2 levels rise and plants begins to photosynthesise at a higher rate, the fungi may not be able to provide nitrates quickly enough to meet the plants» demands.

Published in the journal Oecologia, the study is the first to show that even freshwater fish which only spend a small portion of their lifecycle in the ocean are likely to be seriously affected under the higher CO2 levels expected at the end of the century.

But now we've got significantly more CO2 in the atmosphere than there was even during the warm periods, and climate scientists have some hints that we're actually at the highest levels in perhaps 15 million years.

«Atmospheric CO2 is not a pollutant, it is in fact the very elixir of life,» Craig Idso, a science adviser to the CO2 Coalition, said during a panel discussion at CPAC exploring the benefits attached to higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

The 400 ppm mark is of course somewhat arbitrary, and more important is the buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere and the fact that levels this high haven't been present on Earth in likely about 3.5 million years, said Jason Smerdon, a climate researcher at Columbia University's Lamont - Doherty Earth Observatory.

Extensive simulations [17], [194] confirm that the effect of solar variability is small compared with GHGs if CO2 emissions continue at a high level.

CO2 accounts for more than 80 % of the added GHG forcing in the past 15 years [64], [167] and, if fossil fuel emissions continue at a high level, CO2 will be the dominant driver of future global temperature change.

However, due to the higher level of torque, the fuel saving is considerable at only 4.9 l / 100 km with emissions of just 129 grams of CO2 per km.

With its two mono - scroll turbochargers, charge air cooler, High Precision Injection, VALVETRONIC variable valve timing and Double - VANOS fully variable camshaft timing, the six - cylinder in - line engine and takes a clear and consistent aim at the higher echelons of performance, but is equally committed to developing significant torque from low engine speeds and achieving high levels of efficiency (fuel consumption combined: 8.4 l / 100 km [33.6 mpg imp] *; CO2 emissions combined: 197 g / kmHigh Precision Injection, VALVETRONIC variable valve timing and Double - VANOS fully variable camshaft timing, the six - cylinder in - line engine and takes a clear and consistent aim at the higher echelons of performance, but is equally committed to developing significant torque from low engine speeds and achieving high levels of efficiency (fuel consumption combined: 8.4 l / 100 km [33.6 mpg imp] *; CO2 emissions combined: 197 g / kmhigh levels of efficiency (fuel consumption combined: 8.4 l / 100 km [33.6 mpg imp] *; CO2 emissions combined: 197 g / km *).

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.

For large parts of the Earth's past history, CO2 - levels have been at least 10 times higher than today, with no apparent catastrophe.

450 million years ago the CO2 - level was 10 times higher at a time when the climate was even in a cold ice age epoch.

The whole issue is that any level above what is often called the «effective radiating level» (say, at ~ 255 K on Earth) should start to cool as atmospheric CO2 increases, since the layers above this height are being shielded more strongly from upwelling radiation... except not quite, because convection distributes heating higher than this level, the stratosphere marks the point where convection gives out and there is high static stability.

Also these trends this century are against a background of higher than estimated man made CO2 emmisions and also that the forcing factor of this affect must have already been at its highest level during the 21st century and can only decline as total atmospheric CO2 increases.

If you look at constraints on CO2 sensitivity — 3 degrees is by far the most likely level, but the chances of it being higher than 4.5 degrees are more than those of it being below 2 degrees.

Put it this way if atmospheric levels of CO2 were fixed at to - day's level (380ppm) indefinitely when would we see global temperatures 0.5 deg C higher than to - day.

For one thing, the timing with the industrial revolution is hard to dismiss as a coincidence, especially since it is known that CO2 levels haven't been as high as they are now for at least ~ 1 million years (over which we have very good data from ice cores) and likely for the last 20 million years.

Last time the atmosphere was at 400 ppm of CO2 sea levels were somewhere in the neighborhood of 85 feet higher than today.

We've had both situations in the past — «Amsterdam» under ice about 20,000 years ago at the last glacial maximum, and «Amsterdam» under water in the Pliocene, 3 million years ago, when CO2 and sea level were higher than today.

Low atmospheric CO2 levels during the Permo - Carboniferous...... at a time when total atmospheric pressure was similar or slight higher than now.

Empirical evidence tells us that the last time CO2 levels were at 400 ppm, the oceans were considerably higher, perhaps in the neighborhood of 85 feet.

Fred, are you distinguishing the stratosphere temperature — during the period of nonequilibrium from — during the new equilibrium period after CO2 stops increasing and the warming has leveled off at a higher temperature?

Increased CO2 in the stratosphere at higher levels increases upwelling radiation to space which appears to have been greater than absorption from below resulting in cooling at higher levels.

It does seem at first glance that a warm troposphere would warm the stratosphere, but the explanation that more of the earth - sourced infrared radiation is absorbed lower in the the troposphere by higher levels of CO2 makes sense if one thinks about the thermodynamic losses involved in the CO2 re-radiation processes; some of the earth - sourced infrared is transformed into kinetic energy and only a fraction is reradiated as more infrared radiation (if I'm understanding correctly).

Real climate has forever stated that Delta is going to be 3 C with a atmospheric doubling of pre industrial CO2 levels but now lots of people are suggesting that 450 ppmv has a high probability of reaching 2C of warming which because of sinks becomming sources at this temperature level presupposses 3C due to this high level of positive feedback?

Actual and projected emission levels are already at the high end of Hansen's «alternative scenario» which was suggested as an achievable outcome (based on significant control efforts) that kept forcings (including Co2, CH4 and black carbon) below a level that Hansen considered would be «dangerous» (specifically a level that would avoid the melting of any significant fraction of the WAIS or Greenland ice sheet).

At high levels of CO2 other physiological parameters including pollen productivity and stomatal frequency have also been shown to increase.

The Lambert - Quiggin school of econometrics would agree there's a likely high R - squared and t statistic, and that these «prove» that CO2 «causes» population growth and AGW, as well it may, as the same source (236, see below) shows that C3 plants (95 % of all plant matter) do best at elevated CO2 levels, eg soya, 61 % higher mass when CO2 rises from 160 to 330 ppm, with mass peaking at CO2 600 ppm (today only 380).

His fellow Swede, physicist Anders Ångström, disputed Arrhenius's theory on the ground that the absorption bands would have saturated well before reaching that level, but what neither Swede knew back then was that CO2 had more than 30,000 absorption lines most at strengths insufficient to play any role until CO2 had reached far higher than the 6000 ppm of a hundred million years ago.

This would be helpful in calculating the atmospheric concentration at which CO2 would cease to increase if emissions were naturally (or forcibly) capped at X % higher levels than today.

This claim ignores the fact that CO2 is a natural but very minor constituent of the atmosphere that is indispensable to life on Earth and has been at far higher levels during most of Earth's history.

You answer: «Depends of what time of the day (and in what season) samples were taken: at night and mornings, the highest levels are found, as at night plants and soil bacteria respire CO2 and wind speeds are often low, thus all CO2 of all sources (including human sources) accumulate, typically with over 100 ppmv compared to background.»

Ernst Beck has complied tens of thousands of analyses of early measurements of atmospheric CO2, and concludes that CO2 levels were much higher during the 1930's warm period than the generally - accepted levels; CO2 dropped sharply during the cooling from ~ 1946 to ~ 1977; and CO2 increased since 1977 due to the recent warming, and is now at similar levels to the early 1940's.

The alternative formula, that a change in temperature causes a change in dynamic equilibrium between CO2 release and CO2 absorption is far more normal in nature: higher temperatures lead to a new equilibrium at a higher CO2 level.

It has to be more reliable than the weather station I got for Christmas though, which together with my watch weather predictor and my existing internal weather station, are all telling me its been raining steadily for the last two days when in fact its been gloriously sunny but with a fairly high humidity (we live next to the ocean) Anyone up for our own monitoring of co2 levels - if it is at all practical?

In your many lines — thankyou — i found the key argument how you can be convinced that the temperature only creates variation for a very short time: YOu write: «The net result is that a new equilibrium (at a higher CO2 level) is reached in relative short time, between a few months (seasons) to a few years (sustained higher average temperature level).»

The extra energy trapped by CO2 at low levels in the atmosphere is radiated away by the CO2 at higher levels.

While the Earth has been warmer over the past 10 years than it was 30 years ago, it is also losing energy at a higher rate, even though the CO2 level is higher now.

A new equilibrium (at a higher CO2 level) can be reached, if the increase in atmospheric CO2 is sufficient to increase the uptake by the oceans and biosphere to the same levels as the continuous addition.