Sentences with phrase «ghg warms the land»

GHG warms the land, the land warms the rivers, and the rivers warm the ocean.

Not exact matches

The abstract includes the statement: «Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land.»

Of the forcings leading to a warming in the early part of the records, solar, decreasing volcanism and GHGs all play a part (and with a role for cooling due to land use change and aerosol increases).

What we have here is a situation in which MM05 attempts to make a point to discredit climate warming which — even if they were correct — would not affect the indicated existence of human forcing of climate via GHG emissions / land use changes occurring now.

Despite factors against warming in the 2000s, Smith et all predicted natural variation would suppress GHG warming in the initial years of their prediction, 2005 and 2010 were both warmer than 1998 on the two American temp series, both of which do well in comparison to the BEST land series.

As the ocean warms, more H2O (and CO2) will outgas, which will raise the specific humidity of the air thus leading to amplification of the GHG effect, and then spreading to land areas.

While the Kyoto Protocol had already been set into place as the primary solution to climate change, the historian of science Stuart Weart marks the point at the year 2001 where climate scientists had actually reached a consensus that human activity was warming the planet via GHG emissions and land - use changes, the former largely from fossil fuel use.

However you slice it, lolwot, there is a current «pause» (or «standstill») in the warming of the «globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature anomaly» (used by IPCC to measure «global warming»), despite unabated human GHG emissions and CO2 levels (Mauna Loa) reaching record levels.

Is it reasonable to be 95 % uncertain the warming is GHG induced (not UHI and land use, deforestation) until the global temperature eclipses those of the RMP and the MWP, and the sea level increases above the RMP?

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.

«Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land.

[Lukewarmers] tend to attribute the warming seen to date to a variety of sources: GHGs, land use changes, Urban Heat Island, and natural variability.

«It is certain that GHG emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and from land use change lead to a warming of climate, and it is very likely that these GHGs are the dominant cause of the global warming that has been taking place over the last 50 years.»

«It is certain that GHG emissions from the burning fossil fuels and land use change lead to a warming of climate, and it is very likely that these GHGs are the dominant cause of the global warming that has taken place over the last 50 years»

So far, none of our experts out here in WUWT land — or anywhere else I have looked have made what I can call «a good job of explaining» as to how it is possible for energy that is transported away from the surface and back again via GHGs manages to warm the surface.

This tells us that over this period all other anthropogenic forcing components (aerosols, other GHGs, land use changes, surface albedo changes, etc.) essentially cancelled one another out, so we can ignore your statement «we suspect that aerosols caused cooling», as this is already compensated for by other anthropogenic warming beside CO2.

However, two recent papers published in Science, including the one we discussed in our post, have pointed out that when you take into account land use changes, the global warming pollution benefit of corn ethanol is negligible or not a benefit at all but a negative (researcher Joseph Fargione's team found that most biofuels «create a «biofuel carbon debt» by releasing 17 to 420 times more CO2 than the annual greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions that these biofuels would provide by displacing fossil fuels.»)