Sentences with phrase «co2 warms the planet»

Both methods suggest doubling CO2 warms the planet by 2 °C at least.

In climate science, for example, where we don't need an elaborate climate model to understand the basic physics and chemistry of greenhouse gases, so at some level the fact that increased CO2 warms the planet is a consequence of very basic physics and chemistry.

Habitat is being disturbed and polluted by offshore oil development in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas, and as CO2 warms our planet, the arctic ice pack is rapidly melting; the whales are in danger from noise, oil spills and deadly collisions with ships, while global warming is steadily melting their icy abode and reducing available food.

However, they can provide both positive and negative forcing» and Ray # 252 «we understand extremely well the way greenhouse gasses [sic] like CO2 warm the planet» So here we go — Assumptions from considerations of physics: Unless CO2 could enlist water vapour to amplify its forcing it would simply be an unremarkable trace gas in the atmosphere, but — CO2 + water (vapour) = + ve feedback implying warming CO2 + water (liquid) = - ve feedback implying cooling Facts: Clouds cover half the surface of the planet.

Unlike a belief in leprechauns, there is a preponderance of evidence that CO2 warms the planet and that the anthropogenic contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere is causing the observed warming trend.

As researcher Max Boykoff has described, relative to the assertions that CO2 warms the planet or that humans contribute to climate change, there is overwhelming scientific agreement, and therefore a clear objective basis upon which to criticize the media if they fail to accurately convey this consensus.

As for the general CO2 warms the planet point, you should look for some basic climate science primers.

There are 2 basic points: the first one says «CO2 warms the planet» and the second one says «the planet has been warming».

BTW Mosher, can you show us the experiment conducted in a 20 mile column of air that «proves» CO2 warms the planet.

Not exact matches

It does indeed cause some warming of our planet, and we should thank Providence for that, because without the greenhouse warming of CO2 and its more potent partners, water vapor and clouds, the earth would be too cold to sustain its current abundance of life.

The question is how much warming, and whether the increased CO2 and the warming it causes will be good or bad for the planet.

The combination of a slightly warmer earth and more CO2 will greatly increase the production of food, wood, fiber, and other products by green plants, so the increase will be good for the planet, and will easily outweigh any negative effects.

It's no mystery why carbon dioxide (CO2) levels fluctuate with the seasons: As greenery grows in the spring and summer, it soaks up the planet - warming gas, and when trees shed their leaves in the autumn, some of that gas returns to the atmosphere.

But in the future, if soil nutrients are exhausted by the flush of new growth, CO2 generated by the decomposition of organic matter long trapped in the soil could end up adding to the overall concentrations of that planet - warming gas.

As soon as more CO2 enters a watery planet's atmosphere, its warming effect is rapidly amplified.

These days the Martian atmosphere is thin and about 95 per cent CO2, but scientists think that 3 or 4 billion years ago the planet's gassy envelope was much thicker and even richer in carbon, making its surface warm enough to support liquid water — and possibly life.

Where CO2 takes centuries to millennia to warm the planet, methane is its cousin on steroids, working quickly over decades before decaying into less virulent gases.

Read previous Green machine columns: A new push for pond scum power, The dream of green cars meets reality, Tackling the plastic menace, Bacteria will keep CO2 safely buried, Recycled batteries boost electric cars, It's your eco-friendly funeral, Cars could run on sunlight and CO2, Hitting the lights in wasteful offices, Aircon that doesn't warm the planet.

They dramatically accelerated the natural breakdown of exposed rocks, according to a new study, drawing so much planet - warming carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere that they sent Earth's climate spiraling into a major ice age.

Read previous Green machine columns: Wave power line jacks into the grid, Fighting the efficiency fallacies, Don't burn plant waste, bury it, Plug - free electric cars» hidden cost, Aircon that doesn't warm the planet, A new push for pond scum power, The dream of green cars meets reality, Tackling the plastic menace, Bacteria will keep CO2 safely buried, Recycled batteries boost electric cars.

CO2, of course, warms the planet, just not as sharply as methane.

That's basic physics and chemistry and people who claim that they don't believe that, they don't believe we're warming the planet through increasing CO2 levels because of climate models, they don't understand the fact that you don't need a climate model to come to that conclusion.

Which means our coolness relies on fossil fuel burning that ups CO2 pollution and warms the planet.

While CO2 persists in the atmosphere for centuries, or even millennia, methane warms the planet on steroids for a decade or two before decaying to CO2.

And these factors could suddenly alter the way the planet responds to CO2 and make it pretty near impossible to predict how warm or cool the world will be in a hundred years.

More warming is expected as CO2 invisibly accumulates in the sky, where the molecule persists for centuries, and then traps more heat as it insulates the planet.

Studies of past climate changes suggest the land and oceans start releasing more CO2 than they absorb as the planet warms.

«Global climate change involves not just a warming planet, but also increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations and changes in rainfall,» said lead author Lauren Smith - Ramesh, a postdoctoral fellow at NIMBioS.

Methane is a greenhouse gas 300 times as potent as CO2, so it would be capable of warming the planet, even with the weaker sun.

In other words, with more nitrogen available, plant life might be able to absorb more CO2 than climate scientists have been estimating, which means the planet won't warm as much, despite mankind's pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.

One recent study examining the Palaeocene — Eocene Thermal Maximum (about 55 million years ago), during which the planet warmed 5 - 9 °C, found that «At accepted values for the climate sensitivity to a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration, this rise in CO2 can explain only between 1 and 3.5 °C of the warming inferred from proxy records» (Zeebe 2009).

In the comparatively brief time that methane is in the atmosphere, it warms the planet about 86 times as much as the same amount of CO2, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The CO2 pumped into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels today will hang around for centuries, building up over time and continuing to warm the planet.

If we accept that greenhouse gases are warming the planet, the next concept that needs to be grasped is that it takes time, and we have not yet seen the full rise in temperature that will occur as a result of the CO2 we have already emitted.

Leading Warmist know that is no» global warming» so they encompassed» climatic changes» to confuse and con the ignorant — so that when is some extreme weather for few days on some corner of the planet, to use it as proof of their phony global warming and ignore that the weather is good simultaneously on the other 97 % of the planet, even though is same amount of co2.

[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?)

Your Grand Theory seems to rest on the idea that FF - use produces CO2, a GHG which is warming the planet but that, in some bizarre balance, a commensurate quantity of SO2 aerosols must also be produced cooling the planet.

Even if you blame ALL the warming since 1850 on CO2 — and even the IPCC doesn't do that — the only logical wish for our planet is «give me more of that» — let's add more CO2 in the air — and if we're lucky we'll get more nighttime warming, and more greening of our planet.

The small amount of climate change in the past 150 years has been all good news: (1) We've had mild warming at night, and (2) We've had greening of our planet from more CO2 in the air.

CO2 will warm the planet more uniformly and also warm the tropics.

And we know that this rise in CO2 - concentration changes the radiation balance of the planet and leads to a warming of global surface temperature.

In those short decades, methane warms the planet by 86 times as much as CO2, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

On the possibility of a changing cloud cover «forcing» global warming in recent times (assuming we can just ignore the CO2 physics and current literature on feedbacks, since I don't see a contradiction between an internal radiative forcing and positive feedbacks), one would have to explain a few things, like why the diurnal temperature gradient would decrease with a planet being warmed by decreased albedo... why the stratosphere should cool... why winters should warm faster than summers... essentially the same questions that come with the cosmic ray hypothesis.

A new theory may well come along which supplants CO2 as the most important cause in warming of the planet.

A warm planet means a wet, productive, flourishing planet and if its warm due to CO2 it means an even more flourishing planet with less violent weather.

Overall, the questions seem to focus on minutia rather than the big picture of how CO2 emissions warm the planet and the evidence supporting that.

So it is much more likely that a warming planet will see reduced crop yields, rather any potential benefit from «CO2 fertilization».

The fact that you don't understand the mechanisms of how increased CO2 warms the oceans is irrelevant, since the heat content of the oceans is increasing (and, thus, the planet, as a whole has continued warming despite your «hiatus»).

How will a warmer, wetter, CO2 fertilized planet be a bad thing?

[T] here have now been several recent papers showing much the same — numerous factors including: the increase in positive forcing (CO2 and the recent work on black carbon), decrease in estimated negative forcing (aerosols), combined with the stubborn refusal of the planet to warm as had been predicted over the last decade, all makes a high climate sensitivity increasingly untenable.