Sentences with phrase «ghg feedback effect»

«I think this is a great model because it appears to require a significant GHG feedback effect from the CO2.

All told, I think this is a great model because it appears to require a significant GHG feedback effect from the CO2.

Not exact matches

I guess I am surprised that with better understanding of the importance of water vapor feedback, sulfate aerosols, black carbon aerosols, more rapid than expected declines in sea ice and attendant decreases in albedo, effects of the deposition of soot and dust on snow and ice decreasing albedo, and a recognition of the importance of GHGs that were probably not considered 30 years ago, that the sensitivity has changed so little over time.

I'm not even an amateur climate scientist, but my logic tells me that if clouds have a stronger negative feedback in the Arctic, and I know (from news) the Arctic is warming faster than other areas, then it seems «forcing GHGs» (CO2, etc) may have a strong sensitivity than suggested, but this is suppressed by the cloud effect.

If not, those feedbacks may kick in, taking us up to a higher level of GW & other nasty effects — and we will have no ability to control it, even by reducing our GHGs to near zero.

I guess I am surprised that with better understanding of the importance of water vapor feedback, sulfate aerosols, black carbon aerosols, more rapid than expected declines in sea ice and attendant decreases in albedo, effects of the deposition of soot and dust on snow and ice decreasing albedo, and a recognition of the importance of GHGs that were probably not considered 30 years ago, that the sensitivity has changed so little over time.

The relative importance of GHG warming and indirect effect and a revised version of the IPCC TAR of the cloud feedback is exactly what I am working on.

If not, those feedbacks may kick in, taking us up to a higher level of GW & other nasty effects — and we will have no ability to control it, even by reducing our GHGs to near zero.

But it could be even worse — with the GHG feedback added in, the full response from the paleoclimate effects looks like it could multiply the IPCC estimates by a factor of 4 to 6.

Is less poleward transport of heat by the Gulf Stream as the AMOC weakens a positive feedback for global warming, since that energy will escape more slowly in the humid (higher water vapor GHG effect) tropics than near the poles?

There is no GHG caused global greenhouse effect, because convective etc feedback negates it.

Thus if you change the air constituents (ie add GHGs) then the energy transported by radiative effects will increase, but the increase in GHG residence time will cause a feedback and decrease in conduction etc residence time (ie hotter air rising faster).

That means that the (positive) response to GHGs must be lower than currently implemented in the models (the direct effect — without feedbacks — of anthropogenic GHG forcing is currently ~ 0.3 K).

Assuming that scientists haven't left out anything vital, this suggests that the net effect of water - based feedbacks is positive and would amplify GHG - induced warming by more than a factor of two.Many assumptions have been made, but the historical evidence increases our confidence in model results.

This «climate sensitivity» not only depends on the direct effect of the GHGs themselves, but also on natural «climate feedback» mechanisms, particularly those due to clouds, water vapour, and snow cover.

Consensus about the effect of how increasing GHGs worked within climate models with various feedbacks and spatial features was late 70s - early 80s.

But CO2 and other GHGs absorb infrared and add to the effects of the Sun in additional forcings and feedbacks.

Since it is warming somewhat, GHGs are likely responsible for some of that, but we need to know if the bigger - impact feedback effects are actually ocurring (and what sign they have in the real world).

This goes a long way to explaining the * globalising * effects of GHG feedback during deglaciation.

They assume «positive feedbacks» from GHGs that trap heat, but understate the reflective and thus cooling effects of clouds.

(Note, however, that to the extent that positive cloud feedbacks on GHG - mediated forcing mediate a reduction in cloud cover, the amplification will substitute some SW effects for LW effects due to the reduced cloud greenhouse warming and increased warming from a lower albedo).

It's all as it was in those happy carefree days of 2009 and before, BC (yes, Before Cli **** ga **) as we call it now, when the MSM would happily «highlight the most alarmist aspects and downplay any mention of uncertainty» (Zorita), when no doubts were allowed, or should I say expressed, about the holy trilogy of WG1, 2, and 3 — how certain it was that the well - accepted theory of ghg effect, and the impacts thereof, would lead to a Copenhagen / Kyoto utopia of global cooperation, and that the IPCC was cool (whoops, «the request for more research about the social dynamics of the IPCC, of positive feedbacks as described by Judith, is meaningful for me» (von Storch).)

I should also add that an alternative model for glacial cycle assuming GHG feedback was insignificant would have to produce some physics to show how the radiative effect from change in GHG managed to have no effect.

Methane is an important part of the anthropogenic radiative forcing Methane emissions have a direct GHG effect, and they effect atmospheric chemistry and stratospheric water vapour which have additional impacts natural feedbacks involving methane likely to be important in future — via wetland response to temperature / rain change, atmospheric chemistry and, yes, arctic sources There are large stores of carbon in the Arctic, some stored as hydrates, some potentially convertible to CH4 by anaerobic resporation [from wikianswers: Without oxygen.

Since the less than positive feedback of clouds in the tropics appears to be the reason that the tropical troposphere hot spot signature of WMGHG warming is missing which implies that the water vapor and cloud feedbacks that are supposed to produce 2/3 of the GHG effect warming are not following the game plan, Spencer et al., by averaging ever damn thing they would find that might possibly show the tropical troposphere hot spot, are basically telling Trenberth and Dessler, «told ya so!»

We have theory A, which says that the heating effect of GHG's via feedback is next to negligible.

-- GHGs can work both as forcing and as feedback, the notion is clear, also that water vapour is a positive feedback effect — When water warms the amount of water vapour will increase, as will C02

I think research on negative feedbacks is very important, because they could help lessen the warming effect of GHGs.

However, this conceptual model does not claim to pick up the net effect of CO 2, but describes the aggregated effect of all GHGs as well as all feedback mechanisms such as clouds.

Although the most advanced theoretical climate models still leave uncertainty, particularly about the sign and magnitudes of the effects, on GHG feedbacks, of some low - and high - clouds, a consensus began to develop that threats of resulting increases in global temperature — and the very large risks associated with their possible consequences — deserved substantial increase in attention.

I suspect that this is perhaps the more complex bit of the puzzle to deal with because it is pretty clear from just a naïve appreciation of the physics that this relationship works both ways with various lags (aside from the normal issue of GHG concentrations increasing temp, increased temp effects chemical reactions i.e. feedback as mentioned by a number of commentators).