Sentences with phrase «co2 is the driving force»

``... should be compared with events in the past like the PETM to get a solid feel for whether or not CO2 is a driving force in the temperature response of the atmosphere.»

Regardless, whether or not CO2 is a driving force seems to me to be a secondary issue.

Although it takes the MAJOR ASSUMPTION that increasing CO2 is the driving force behind the increase to the current temperature Maxima.

Not exact matches

Driver: 5; Colour: SILVER; SETS OF KEYS: 3;; This car comes with:; Climate Control; Cruise Control; Seats Heated (Driver / Passenger); Alloy Wheels (18in); Computer (Driver Information System); Electric Windows (Front / Rear); In Car Entertainment (Radio / CD Autochanger); Rain Sensor; Seats Electric (Driver);; Economy and performance:; Urban mpg31.0 mpg; Extra Urban mpg37.2 mpg; Average mpg34.9 mpg; CO2 emissions192g / km; Annual TaxGBP 280; Engine power208 bhp; Engine size3311 cc; Brochure Engine size3.3 litres; Acceleration (0 - 60mph) 7.6 seconds; Top speed124 mph; DrivetrainFour Wheel Drive;; Driver Convenience;; Seats Electric (Driver); Climate Control; Electric Windows (Front / Rear); Carpet; Adjustable Steering Column / Wheel; Steering Wheel Mounted Controls (Audio / Telephone); Upholstery Cloth; Seats Heated (Driver / Passenger); Armrest; Cruise Control; Speakers; Rain Sensor; In Car Entertainment (Radio / CD Autochanger); Seat Lumbar Support (Driver Electric);; Safety:; Head Restraints; Immobiliser; Anti-Lock Brakes; Power - Assisted Steering; Air Bag Knee; Seat Belt Pre-Tensioners; Front Fog Lights; Seat - ISOFIX Anchorage Point (Rear); Electronic Brake Force Distribution; Air Bag Passenger; Air Bag Side; Air Bag Driver; Central Door Locking; Deadlocks; Centre Rear Seat Belt; Head Air Bags; Traction Control System;; Exterior Features:; Alloy Wheels (18in); Spare Wheel; Roof Rails; Mirrors External (Electric / Heated / Folding / Auto Dimming);; Interior Features:; Power Socket; Computer (Driver Information System); Mirrors Internal;; Dimensions:; Height1720 mm; Height (inc. roof rails) No details available; Length4760 mm; Wheelbase2720 mm; Width1845 mm; Fuel tank65 litres; Luggage capacity (seats up) 900 litres; Luggage capacity (seats down) 1500 litres; Minimum kerb weight2000 kg;; We are Uk's leading Jap Performance Specialists and have taken this car as a part exchange against one of our retail cars hence it is priced LOW to sell QUICKLY WE NEED THE SPACE ON OUR SITE!!

[1] CO2 absorbs IR, is the main GHG, human emissions are increasing its concentration in the atmosphere, raising temperatures globally; the second GHG, water vapor, exists in equilibrium with water / ice, would precipitate out if not for the CO2, so acts as a feedback; since the oceans cover so much of the planet, water is a large positive feedback; melting snow and ice as the atmosphere warms decreases albedo, another positive feedback, biased toward the poles, which gives larger polar warming than the global average; decreasing the temperature gradient from the equator to the poles is reducing the driving forces for the jetstream; the jetstream's meanders are increasing in amplitude and slowing, just like the lower Missippi River where its driving gradient decreases; the larger slower meanders increase the amplitude and duration of blocking highs, increasing drought and extreme temperatures — and 30,000 + Europeans and 5,000 plus Russians die, and the US corn crop, Russian wheat crop, and Aussie wildland fire protection fails — or extreme rainfall floods the US, France, Pakistan, Thailand (driving up prices for disk drives — hows that for unexpected adverse impacts from AGW?)

Despite your insistence otherwise, you evince at best a shallow understanding of basic principles of climate science (hint: while radiative forcing is known to be at least partially controlled by atmospheric CO2, no «natural», i.e. internal source of variability has been demonstrated that could drive a global temperature trend for half a century), as well as an inability to recognize genuine expertise.

That increases the size of the temperature change per «small change» of doubling of CO2 by almost one order of magnitude, and many people would dispute that an approximately 10 % GHG - driven temperature increase for a «small change» in greenhouse forcing is a «small temperature change».

Although the primary driver of glacial — interglacial cycles lies in the seasonal and latitudinal distribution of incoming solar energy driven by changes in the geometry of the Earth's orbit around the Sun («orbital forcing»), reconstructions and simulations together show that the full magnitude of glacial — interglacial temperature and ice volume changes can not be explained without accounting for changes in atmospheric CO2 content and the associated climate feedbacks.

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.

[Response: To pre-empt some mutual incomprehension, note that industrial CO2 rises are certainly an anthropgenic forcing and not a response (see here and here), but clearly CO2 changes over glacial - interglacial cycles is both a response (to Milankovitch - driven changes) and a forcing (since the additional radiative forcing from CO2 is about a third of that needed to keep the ice ages as cold as they are — see here).

It is the leap from the first to second sentence that drives Soon's research — the notion that if you can find enough correlations to solar forcing, the impact of CO2 must be diminished, if not obliterated altogether.

Vetoretti and Peltier (2004) found that glacial inceptions can be caused either by a strong obliquity forcing or by a combination of eccentricity - precession forcing and low CO2 values, which is in line with results from Berger and Loutre (2001) who found that CO2 is important during times like the MIS - 11, when the insolation variations are too small to drive glacial - interglacial cycles.

If, in fact, the climate HAS changed over the millions of years of Earth's history (it has), and if, in fact, we are not always able to explain why it has changed (we aren't), then I see no reason to accept the assumption that CO2 has to be the principal driving force.

By cherry picking data inputs for aerosols, you can make CO2 — and other GHGs — appear to be the driving force.

It should be equally obvious that short term ocean fluctuations can not be driven by short term CO2 fluctuations because the action of radiative forcing takes much longer than a year for its influence to be felt in ocean temperatures.

So we have: LOD representing differential internal free energy described as a rotational kinetic energy - > dG SOI representing a pressure differential - > VdP Aerosols representing a reflective EM - > dEa TSI representing an external EM driving force - > dEb ln (CO2) representing a suppressive EM - > dEc Temperature and heat capacity (S) combine - > SdT

If the pressure difference is zero, there is no extra driving force and any exchange is purely by diffusion (which is very slow for CO2 in water).

You see, I was labouring under the (perhaps simplistically naive) impression that chemical associations such as HCO3 would have forced more CO2 down to the oceans because when you reduce the activity of CO2 in the oceans you create a disequilibrium between PCO2atm and pCO2 aqueous and this increases the driving force for transferring CO2 from the atmosphere to the oceans.

The natural cycles can not be reasonable removed until it is known what in hell drives them, how long they last, what sort of feedbacks do they create independently and among other cycles, how they interact with CO2 and other first order anthro - forcings that alter the earths surface, atmospheric and oceanic physiobiochemistry.

Any feedback loops must also fall in effect because if their driving factor is forcing from CO2, then the driving factor is dropping.

Based on this empirical climate science, it would be safe to conclude that current climate changes are predominantly driven by natural forces, not human CO2 trace gas emissions.»

However all of these changes may be cyclic or quasi-chaotic in nature and not mainly driven by the «forcing CO2».

''... with regard to the IPCC claim that «the increase in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases (including CO2) is the driving force for climate warming,» they note the following four problems:

And now comes an analysis of the BEST temperature dataset, which confirms the weak driving force that CO2 appears to be.

If huge emissions of CO2 are not driving temperature increases, then the apparent cooling must be a function of more powerful forces, such as described in this latest peer - reviewed study.

Other Republican candidates should gleefully (and aggressively) point out that Huntsman is indeed «crazy» because he refuses to accept the latest climate research and empirical evidence that proves natural forces are the primary forces driving warming and climate change, not the trace gas CO2.

If marine organisms migrated similarly pre-1950s when CO2 was an insignificant player, then the most parsimonious explanation is identical migrations today are driven by the same natural forces.

Roger — You may also be interested in evidence (admittedly tentative) that the PDO is driven in part by external forcings, including those arising from CO2 increases.

Furthermore, it's important to constrain all the other forcings at work rather better because it isn't just CO2 that's driving changes.

When CO2 rises, the imbalance rises, but as the climate responds with a rising temperature, that imbalance is partially restored toward its earlier value, and so the magnitude of the driving force for warming will always be less than the magnitude of the difference in CO2 levels.

The e-fold decay rate is what your formula shows for some extra CO2 above equilibrium to bring back the total CO2 back to equilibrium (for a linear process): e-fold decay rate = driving force / net sink rate 110 ppmv / 2.15 ppmv / year = 51.2 years

The fact that the IPCC had been so adamantly opposed to any evidence of change in climate other than the anthropogenic contribution of CO2 into the atmosphere being the driving force, should be enough for even a lay person such as myself to raise real concern.

One of the parameters is high stand or low stand conditions based on sea level transgression / regression curves which is related to long term climate, but I am not aware of any oil companies that use anything remotely resembling what I understand to be a climate model with forcings, and certainly not one driven by something like CO2, solar or anyhting else, simply because you can not know the necessary parameters over the millions of years of geological time that you are interested in modelling.

It proves that CO2 is NOT the driving «force» that caused «Global Warming» [Global Temperature Stagnation] from 1979 until 2012.

There IS a heat source and a physical reality, that requires no forcing to give it super powers as with puny CO2 the palnts gobble up as much as they can get of, in fact.And explains the stable ice age and the Milankovitch linked interglacials, and how that sawtooth between repeated and predicatble limits can be driven using known energy sources, specific heats and masses, plus simple deterministic physics, no statistical models or Piltdown Mann data set approaches.

Although it is important to reduce the remaining climate uncertainties, such as the magnitude of the impacts of short - lived pollutants, it does not change the fact that CO2 is very likely the driving force behind the current global warming, or that if we double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from pre-industrial levels, the planet will likely warm in the range of 2 to 4.5 °C.

rapid warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases, not by the products of fossil fuel burning, CO2 and aerosols, the positive and negative climate forcings of which are partially offsetting.

The van de Wal et al. [123] model has a 30 °C change in Northern Hemisphere temperature (their model is hemispheric) between the MMCO and average Pleistocene conditions driven by a CO2 decline from approximately 450 ppm to approximately 250 ppm, which is a forcing of approximately 3.5 W m − 2.

Hansen & Sato [60] suggest adding slow feedbacks one by one, creating a series of increasingly comprehensive Earth system climate sensitivities; specifically, they successively move climate - driven changes in surface albedo, non-CO2 GHGs and CO2 into the feedback category, at which point the Earth system sensitivity is relevant to an external forcing such as changing solar irradiance or human - made forcings.

We have shown that global temperature change over the Cenozoic era is consistent with CO2 change being the climate forcing that drove the long - term climate change.

It is apparent that CO2 is not the driving force behind climate, since there is poor correlation between CO2 and temperature for the last 20 years and over geologic time periods.

Since climate models are dependent on the CO2 greenhouse gas being a major driving force in the simulations, it is not a surprise to those familiar with the subject that the simulated outputs continue to be deeply flawed.

This chart also shows that CO2 levels are not driving the considerable spikes of warming and cooling that take place - natural forces overwhelm any CO2 impact.

Rising CO2 levels are also particularly poignant as a driving force.

If you're in agreement with the general framework, and as you offered, I'd very much like to hear your over-whelming evidence for CO2 as the driving force of climate change.

DENIAL MYTH # 1: The source of all the CO2 in the air is outgassing from the mantle (Source: George V. Chilingar's (of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Southern California) paper titled On global forces of nature driving the Earthâ $ ™ s climate.

If your graph should be more close to the truth, Steve, doesn't this mean that CO2 is unequivocally the driving force of Global Warming since the 40s?

Using your previous example of the cyclic nature of climate over time frames of hundreds of years (driven by Milankovich cycles, though several of us have had the impression you're unaware of it), we're not interested in time scales for which we have no * physical * basis for expecting a CO2 - forced trend.