Sentences with phrase «co2 than warm water»

Not exact matches

CO2 is more soluble in colder than in warmer waters; therefore, changes in surface and deep ocean temperature have the potential to alter atmospheric CO2.

The colder, polar waters have an ~ 3x higher CO2 solubility than the warmer, equatorial waters.

[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?)

As the atmosphere warms it can hold more water; that additional water vapor provides more of the warming than is directl caused by CO2.

a switch from grounded ice, or ice shelves, to open waters in the Ross embayment when planetary temperatures were up to approx 3 °C warmer than today and atmospheric CO2 concentration was as high as approx 400 p.p.m.v.»

Others are a-biological, such as ocean degassing from the lower solubility of CO2 in warm versus cool water and also melting of methane clathrates (ice with trapped methane, which is more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

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.

But since you bring it up, basic chemistry tells us that the marine sink will diminish with warming, since warmer waters take up less CO2 than cooler ones.

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).

QUESTION: Why on common sense grounds is CO2 a more significant driver of the greenhouse effect & warming than water vapor?

If CO2 in the Anthropocene atmosphere contributes to re-vegetating currently arid areas as it did post-LGM, we should expect an even greater warming feedback from CO2 than is assumed from water vapor and albedo feedbacks, due to decreased global dust - induced albedo and increased water vapor from transpiration over increased vegetated area.

You appear to have your knickers all twisted about the generally accepted greenhouse theory, which states that GH gases (primarily water vapor, plus some smaller ones, such as CO2) keep our planet warmer than it would otherwise be if they were not in our atmosphere.

«From my basic geochemistry education in water chemistry, CO2 is a strange compound as it exhibits reverse solubility, unlike most compounds, it is more soluble in colder water than in warmer water.»

How can the atmosphere control the climate via its CO2 content when the oceans contain 15 times more of it and CO2 is more soluble in cold water than warm water (the oceans release CO2 to atmosphere when they warm for whatever reason).

We have far more data about increasing CO2 than increasing water vapor, hence if we want to test this hypothesis by looking for a correlation between global warming and the combined effect of CO2 and H2O, a correlation with CO2 alone is more feasible than one involving water vapour.

Rather than questioning the primary role of the atmospheric CO2, our modelling results allow us to put forward that the atmospheric CO2 is not the whole story and that, owing to the overwhelming effect and interplay between the paleogeography, the water cycle and the seasonal response, the climate system may undergo subtle climatic changes (as the 4 °C global warming simulated here between the Aptian and the Maastrichtian runs).

It sounds reasonable, especially since it is known that warmer water holds less CO2 than colder water does.

The theory of AGW says that extra CO2 causes a minor warming (less than 0.5 degree) which then causes the atmosphere to absorb more water vapour.

And this unprecedented warming of ocean waters occurred during a 30 - year period when human CO2 emissions were some 85 % less than the modern era (166 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions versus 784 billion tonnes for the most recent 30 - year span).

And just as CO2 makes the oceans warmer than otherwise, so does water vapor.

They thought the increased evaporation from CO2 would make things even warmer since water vapor is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2.

The theory is that increasing CO2 will cause a small bit of warming and this will increase evaporation rates (which occur fastest in the tropics) and dumps more water vapour in the atmosphere (water vapour is by far a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2) and this feedback amplification is meant to continue until Earth settles down and finds a new equilibrium temperature.

Water vapour amplification is about 3 times greater than the CO2 warming effect according to the IPCC.

It might be because of global warming — SebastianH believes that humans are causing oceans to acidify faster than the sea water species can adapt to it -LRB--0.07 pH in 200 years), that we're causing the Earth to desertify, and that we're causing food quality to deteriorate... with our CO2 emissions.

However, since this cycle takes hundreds of years, it could be that the current slow and small change in pH in the near surface waters since 1700 is due to the Medieval Warm Period rather than human co2 emissions.

But when you look at the very cold regions where there is almost no water in the atmosphere to begin with, or the desert regions, you do not in fact see any observable evidence that the air is any warmer than it was in the past with respect to CO2 increases.

We know further, from laboratory work, that CO2, and more importantly water vapor, in the atmosphere serves to keep the Earth warmer than it would be in their absence.

Carbon dioxide is the biggest long - term human - generated contributor to global warming — other molecules like methane and water vapor are also greenhouse gases, but their levels are more or less constant; the amount of anthropogenic CO2 has been going up steadily for decades and is higher now than in any point in human history.

The IPCC, its models, and the climate establishment insist warming will be more than this because the warming will cause an increase in atmospheric water vapor (the major greenhouse gas) which will amplify the CO2 - caused warming, a net positive feedback.

Still others have expanded on the degree to which CO2 is better absorbed by cold water than warm.

All that is needed is to add heat carried upwards past the denser atmosphere (and most CO2) by convection and the latent heat from water changing state (the majority of heat transport to the tropopause), the albedo effects of clouds, the inability of long wave «downwelling» (the blue balls) to warm water that makes up 2 / 3rds of the Earth's surface, and that due to huge differences in enthalpy dry air takes far less energy to warm than humid air so temperature is not a measure of atmospheric heat content.

Sunlight warms individual molecules and groups of molecules and so could drive off CO2 more than would be the case from a warming of the whole body of water would it not?

gnomish says: April 8, 2012 at 8:55 pm (Edit) maybe the co2 came out of the cold polar waters when it warmed rather than from the warmer equatorial ones that were already depleted?

The resulting warming due to the water vapour is in fact larger than the initial warming due to the CO2 that forced it to happen, and this is the point of the Lacis paper - yes, water vapour is a more important greenhouse gas than CO2, but water vapour doesn't change systematically with time UNLESS CO2 is changing and initiating a warming that sets into motion the surface and atmospheric processes that allow water vapour to systematically increase.

Except for the fact that cold sea water holds more CO2 in solution than does an equal amount at a warmer tmperature.

More CO2 can be dissolved in cold water than warm water, and there are a number of carbon sequestering and releasing processes involving ocean life.

This implies that hurricane intensity increase due to a possible global warming associated with increased CO2 is considerably smaller than that expected from warming of the oceanic waters alone.»

The only way CO2 could absorb any more IR than it is already absorbing is if 1) the surface started re-emitting more IR, which could only happen if more sunlight reached the surface, or 2) atmospheric water vapor levels dropped, freeing up more IR to be absorbed by CO2, in which case, warming would not occur, because that radiation was already being absorbed by the water vapor that disappeared.

It's better to focus on a few of these — warming stopped in 1998, water vapour is more important than CO2 etc — and politely annihilate his arguments.

About 40 percent of the carbon enter the oceans through the waters of the Southern Ocean, around Antarctica, because CO2 dissolves more readily in cold seawater than in warmer waters.