Sentences with phrase «ghg warming process»

DO they ever change as a result of the GHG warming process.

Not exact matches

In this case, GHG warming explains the last several decades nicely, but changes in known natural processes do not.

There are hundreds of millions of vehicles, a great many high - GHG power plants, many millions of belching cows, vast stretches of suburban sprawl, and a zillion other contributors to global warming that are now part of the development structures and processes essential to the welfare and lifestyles of billions of people.

ie My understanding of convective feedback is that it was overlooked, & so when the GHG process was added it adds in the extra energy from GHG warming and forgot to subtract it out by convective feedback.

Why wouldn't the same process work for GHG caused warming?

There are, however, caveats: (1) multidecadal fluctuations in Arctic — subarctic climate and sea ice appear most pronounced in the Atlantic sector, such that the pan-Arctic signal may be substantially smaller [e.g., Polyakov et al., 2003; Mahajan et al., 2011]; (2) the sea - ice records synthesized here represent primarily the cold season (winter — spring), whereas the satellite record clearly shows losses primarily in summer, suggesting that other processes and feedback are important; (3) observations show that while recent sea - ice losses in winter are most pronounced in the Greenland and Barents Seas, the largest reductions in summer are remote from the Atlantic, e.g., Beaufort, Chukchi, and Siberian seas (National Snow and Ice Data Center, 2012, http://nsidc.org/Arcticseaicenews/); and (4) the recent reductions in sea ice should not be considered merely the latest in a sequence of AMOrelated multidecadal fluctuations but rather the first one to be superposed upon an anthropogenic GHG warming background signal that is emerging strongly in the Arctic [Kaufmann et al., 2009; Serreze et al., 2009].

Nit picking to death the processes within the system won't change how the system as a whole behaves, which is to be warmer where there are large concentrations of ghg, and colder where the ghg concentrations are low, and that's at identical latitudes as well as disparate latitudes.

ie, earth has warmed, co2 a ghg, man contributes co2, warming caused in part due to man vs natural processes, for varying opinions of how big that part is) the activist have tried to label them otherwise, not believing earth has warmed (being ambiguous on cause), or not believeing co2 a ghg by never defining, the object of the consensus..

Since to me (and many scientists, although some wanted a lot more corroborative evidence, which they've also gotten) it makes absolutely no sense to presume that the earth would just go about its merry way and keep the climate nice and relatively stable for us (though this rare actual climate scientist pseudo skeptic seems to think it would, based upon some non scientific belief — see second half of this piece), when the earth changes climate easily as it is, climate is ultimately an expression of energy, it is stabilized (right now) by the oceans and ice sheets, and increasing the number of long term thermal radiation / heat energy absorbing and re radiating molecules to levels not seen on earth in several million years would add an enormous influx of energy to the lower atmosphere earth system, which would mildly warm the air and increasingly transfer energy to the earth over time, which in turn would start to alter those stabilizing systems (and which, with increasing ocean energy retention and accelerating polar ice sheet melting at both ends of the globe, is exactly what we've been seeing) and start to reinforce the same process until a new stases would be reached well after the atmospheric levels of ghg has stabilized.

If there is no such process, then > 50 % of the warming since 1950 may be due to human interventions, but the assignment of portions to deforestation and other land use changes and to GHG.

GHG atmospheric warming and atmospheric cooling delay, are physically real processes; that virtually nobody disputes.

The greenhouse effect is the process by which radiation from the planet's atmosphere [back radiation] warms the planet's [lower atmosphere] above what it would be if it had an atmosphere without any GHG's — a very different situation.

Then consider that whenever the number of photons does decrease (every day after the peak at noon) that the number of GHE interactions MUST also decrease, and that the number of unused GHGs (in the GHE process) MUST increase, thus establishing that there is AN EXCESS of GHGs over those used in the GHE process, and therefore ALL of the GHGs generated (either by man as CO2, or as WV by feedback) do NOT necessarily have to be in use to create more GHE warming.

At a recent House hearing, five top scientists stated that black carbon could account for close to 16 % of the planet's gross warming and that it may be second only to carbon dioxide in its potency as a GHG — ahead of methane.The black carbon absorbs incoming sunlight, converting it into infrared radiation and emitting it to the atmosphere — a process we outlined in an earlier post describing the impact of «dirty snow» on global warming.

But I'm a firm believer that there is no future in trying to deny that the absorption of LWIR radiant energy by GHGs is a fairly well understood process, by means of which the atmosphere is warmed.