Sentences with phrase «ghgs having a warming effect»

Not exact matches

The warming commitment if we stop all human emissions (GHG and aerosol) is probably very substantial: The cooling effect of the aerosol will very quickly disappear, thereby «unmasking» the greenhouse warming, approximately half of which has been canceled by aerosol cooling up to now.

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.

In particular, we have a very strong reason to connect GHG's to observed warming, and multiple lines of physics and data for bracketing the magnitude of this effect — which all but relegates GCM's to the trivial - influience - at - best bin.

As detailed in section V of this notice, it is widely recognized that greenhouse gases (GHGs) have a climatic warming effect by trapping heat in the atmosphere that would otherwise escape to space.

Recall, too, that since the relationship between CO2 (or any other GHG) and warming is logarithmic, the earlier increases have a greater effect than you would think.

I would therefore argue that for the global mean the well - mixed GHGs and the counterbalancing reflecitve aerosol effects are «first - order» — without GHGs there is no appreciable warming signal, and without the aerosols, the warming from GHGs is excessive and important changes in the diurnal cycle and cloudiness are not captured.

Efforts to solve global warming by GHG emissions reductions strategies, rather than GHG replacement strategies, can not realistically succeed over the short - term or the long - term or any term, ever - unless the mandated reductions are so drastic that in effect they would require carbon - free alternatives for nearly all GHG sources.

So while the sensitivity of CO2 / warming may be an important (though somewhat uncertain) matter, so too is how sensitive nature is in emitting GHGs in response to the warming (& to the concomitant GW effects), and this it seems is a lot more uncertain and has a lot more potential for danger... like some sleeping monster we keep poking.

[Response: You don't expect it to be completely the same since there are differences: GHGs cause stratospheric cooling, solar irradiance increases cause warming there — GHGs have a very even effect across latitudes, solar is stronger in the tropics.

4) Thus the 1998 super El Nino induced global warming was a secondary effect of short - wave ocean heating, not necessarily recent, and had very little to do with GHG.

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.

The basics are: there is a GE effect; CO2 is a GHG; adding a GHG to the atmosphere MUST have a warming effect; the Earth is warming (despite your post).

If GHGs had the effect you suggest then the days might be slightly warmer but the night temperatures would stay constant.

If only GHG forcing is used, without aerosols, the surface temperature in the last decade or so is about 0.3 - 0.4 C higher than observations; adding in aerosols has a cooling effect of about 0.3 - 0.4 C (and so cancelling out a portion of the GHG warming), providing a fairly good match between the climate model simulations and the observations.

Maybe you have no explanation of that, which is understandable because you have ruled out the relevant effect of GHG warming.

Surface global temperature data may have been hopelessly corrupted by the urban heat island effect and other problems which may explain some portion of the warming that would otherwise be attributed to GHGs / CO2.

If Anthro GHGs are responsible for most of the warming since 1880 think how cold it would now be without their effect.

when skeptics are forced to answer that question, the only safe hiding place for them is to say «they do nt know what effect added GHGs will have» and then when confronted with the vast amount of evidence that counts «for» a warming hypothesis, it does nt seem rational reject the theory that added GHGs will (all things being equal) warm the planet.

The last decade hasn't been cooling btw, though a slower upward trend or even standstill in the trend (of one would deem it meaningful over such a short timeframe) is of course helped by the dampening effect of natural factors having a cooling effect, offsetting some of the warming effect of GHG.

The GHGs have no effect on «natural resources», and the combination of warming, increased CO2 and increased rainfall have (according to recent surveys) increased vegetation.

The greenhouse effect would have required OAS regions to warm as well, therefore, this result is not consistent with GHG theory (except for a very low sensitivity or a counteracting unknown effect).

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).

First it seems rather obvious that if GHG were having such large effect, GHG would not be warming the planet.

So if the atmosphere is not warming, it means the extra GHGs are having no significant effect.

But if you accept that the greenhouse effect is real, and that CO2 is a GHG, and that CO2 has increased (along with other GHGs), you have to accept the merit of my point: that solar, volcanoes, ocean currents and other natural variations do their thing, they vary, but GHGs exert a steady, constant upward forcing on temperature, which upward forcing is only offset by increased heat losses to space from a warmer planet.

It has also been said by someone that the warming effect of GHG's is largely a delay in cooling, which is correct.

• Poles to tropics temperature gradient, average temp of tropics over past 540 Ma; and arguably warming may be net - beneficial overall • Quotes from IPCC AR4 WG1 showing that warming would be beneficial for life, not damaging • Quotes from IPCC AR5 WG3 stating (in effect) that the damage functions used for estimating damages are not supported by evidence • Richard Tol's breakdown of economic impacts of GW by sector • Economic damages of climate change — about the IAMs • McKitrick — Social Cost of Carbon much lower than commonly stated • Bias on impacts of GHG emissions — Figure 1 is a chart showing 15 recent estimates of SCC — Lewis and Curry, 2015, has the lowest uncertainty range.

That only leaves T and V to vary and according to radiative physics V can not vary without first varying T which is where concern about the warming effects of GHGs comes from.

The situation we have here is that the cooling effect of man - made aerosols has declined appreciably [since 1951] as CO2 emissions and other GHGs have increased, so we would expect even greater warming, which hasn't happened.

No catastrophic global warming either, so CO2 levels have only the smallest of effects on global temperature — H2O vapour is the major GHG.

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.

Having made that point it becomes necessary to deal with the matter of cloudiness and it's effects because the passing over of a cloud with the consequence of a warmed ocean skin layer is put forward (by Realclimate amongst others) as a «confirmation» of the effect of DLR on the skin layer because clouds transmit more DLR downward just as GHGs do.

He certainly reduced the noise in the trend by a lot, and gets a pretty good steady trend, which is what would be expected from a steady warming effect due to increasing GHG's in the atmosphere.

The warming (WV is a ghg) is welcome (countering the average global cooling which would otherwise be occurring as a result of declining net effect of ocean cycles and a declining proxy which is the time - integral of SSN anomalies) but the added WV increases the risk of precipitation related flooding.

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!»

: 1 there is a greenhouse effect 2 that CO2 is a GHG 3 that humans have increased atmospheric CO2 to levels not seen for 650k and more 4 that this MUST have a warming effect 5 that the warming (pattern, rate etc) is consistent with GHG forcing

Few scientists would contend that all or most of the Earth's warming before mankind had much effect on GHG levels was anthropogenic.

1 there is a greenhouse effect 2 that CO2 is a GHG 3 that humans have increased atmospheric CO2 to levels not seen for 650k and more 4 that this MUST have a warming effect 5 that the warming (pattern, rate etc) is consistent with GHG forcing 5 that climate sensitivity is likely to be around 3C 6 that, whatever the flaws of MBH98, there are numerous hockey stick reconstructions developed by numerous (and independent) scientists using numerous proxies (not just treerings).

But don't take to much notice of me as I also believe that Advection i.e. the kind of horizontal air movements that follow isobaric surfaces and therefore are predominantly horizontal) have got more of a Green House Effect (GHE) than does a radiation circuit, of say 324 W / m ² originally removed from the surface, and then returned via Green House Gases (GHGs)-- which, by the way, show no sign of having warmed at all (no hot spot) But even so, when somehow the same 324 W / m ² are delivered back to the surface for absorption it is supposed to be getting warmer.

If human CO2 does actually have something to due with increasing the rate of global warming, whatever scientific evidence you wish to choose shows that the puny amount we add, (less GHG than what termites emit), not only doesn't amount to anything worth worrying about at all — it is so small that it is IMPOSSIBLE to have an effect worth worrying about.

The warming commitment if we stop all human emissions (GHG and aerosol) is probably very substantial: The cooling effect of the aerosol will very quickly disappear, thereby «unmasking» the greenhouse warming, approximately half of which has been canceled by aerosol cooling up to now.

Are you claiming that if the atmosphere were replaced with a different set of gasses that do not contain GHG molecules, but still had all the other macro effects such as clouds etc in the exact same amount as our current atmosphere... are you claiming that this atmosphere would NOT cause (directly or indirectly) the surface of the earth to warm at all?

Third we have the John Dodds alternate Wobble Theory of Climate Change» at www, scribd.com or at http://earth-climate.com which shows that the Arrhenius claim that more Greenhouse Gases means more warming (ie the Greenhouse Effect) does not work every night when Mother Natures nightly experiment shows that more GHGs actually result in cooling contrary to the Arrhenius / IPCC theory.

Given the effects we are already seeing from the warming that has already occurred due to the GHGs we have already emitted, at this point it is very difficult for me to imagine any plausible course of events which does NOT result in the collapse of human civilization under the onslaught of AGW within a few decades at most.

All the rest of the GHG's named in Kyoto have an effect outside the range of wavelengths generated by the Earth at hige enough levels for any of these GHG's to cause even a tenth of a degree C of warming even if their concentration grew a hundred fold.

I am aware of people making the argument that the big push by the nuclear industry for enormous government subsidies to find a massive expansion of nuclear power on the basis that nuclear power is «THE ANSWER» to global warming is a fraud that dishonestly and cynically takes advantage of growing concern about the very real problem of global warming, and I make that argument myself (because even a quite large expansion of nuclear electricity generation would have little effect on overall GHG emissions, at great cost, taking too long to achieve even that little effect, while misdirecting resources that could more effectively be applied elsewhere).

If global warming is real and its effects will one day be as devastating as some believe is likely, then greater economic growth would, by increasing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, sooner or later lead to greater damages from climate change.