Sentences with phrase «atmosphere have a warming effect»

I accept that the CO2 molecules in the atmosphere have a warming effect — I don't know who doesn't — and it's evident that human beings have had an impact on the climate.

Not exact matches

Neutral shades have a warm, grounding effect, and can be great for creating a cozy atmosphere.

Atmospheric dust may have a powerful effect on climate, absorbing sunlight and warming the atmosphere at some altitudes while shading and cooling underlying layers of air.

Pollutants that form minute droplets in the atmosphere have horrendously complex effects — so it's far from certain what they mean for global warming

An active hydrological cycle would have required a warmer climate in the planet's early history and therefore a thicker atmosphere, one capable of creating a strong greenhouse effect.

As a result, more of human emissions would remain in the atmosphere, increasing the greenhouse effect that contributes to global warming and alters Earth's climate.

Geoengineering — the intentional manipulation of the climate to counter the effect of global warming by injecting aerosols artificially into the atmosphere — has been mooted as a potential way to deal with climate change.

It may seem surprising to people, but you can look at something like Mars, which has a very thin atmosphere, and you can look at something like Venus which we tend to think of as sort of having this rather heavy, clouded atmosphere, which [is] hellishly warm because of runaway greenhouse effect, and on both of those planets you are seeing this phenomenon of the atmosphere leaking away, is actually what directly has led to those very different outcomes for those planets; the specifics of what happened as the atmosphere started to go in each case [made] all the difference.

That's greater than the warming rate of either the ocean or the atmosphere, and it can have profound effects, the scientists say.

To keep Mars warm requires a dense atmosphere with a sufficient greenhouse effect, while the present - day Mars has a thin atmosphere whose surface pressure is only 0.006 bar, resulting in the cold climate it has today.

It's not clear how much of a greenhouse effect that would produce, but it's a good bet that Earth would be a lot warmer — much as it would be, say, if there were no plants drawing carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.

Limited growth in a drier climate has restricted the amount of carbon that new trees can lock away from the atmosphere, reducing their ability to counteract the effects of global warming.

The the people in the best position to reconize the effects of human behavior on the atmosphere have said over and over that global warming is bullshit.

The nitrogen fertilizers traditionally used in agriculture have polluting effects both in water and in the atmosphere, this can degrade soils and contribute to global warming.

El Niño — a warming of tropical Pacific Ocean waters that changes weather patterns across the globe — causes forests to dry out as rainfall patterns shift, and the occasional unusually strong «super» El Niños, like the current one, have a bigger effect on CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

There are also numerous «fingerprints» which we would expect to see from an increased greenhouse effect (i.e. more warming at night, at higher latitudes, upper atmosphere cooling) that we have indeed observed (Figure 6).

Scientists have modelled the expected temperature drop over the 21st century due to waning solar activity — and they found that the change is likely to be dwarfed by the much bigger warming effect of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Thus far, Kepler has found 48 planetary candidates in their host star's habitable zone (of which 10 are near Earth - size), but this number is a decrease from the 54 reported in February 2011 only because the Kepler team is now applying a stricter definition of what constitutes a habitable zone around stars to account for the warming effect of planetary atmospheres, which would move such a zone away from the star, outwards in orbital distance resulting in longer orbital periods (NASA news release; and Kepler Press Conference slides — in pdf).

Re the cost of flying, there are lots of assumptions around because of different ways of using or ignoring a 1999 report on aviation's role in global warming [Aviation and the Global Atmosphere] for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — the effects of flying are much worse than would be predicted by just burning the oil.

According to Sir Nicholas, «Scientists have been refining their assessment of the probable degree of warming for a given level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere», and «ranges from 2004 estimates are substantially above those from 2001 — science is telling us that the warming effect is greater than we had previously thought.»

Very clear and easy to understand but I have a question concerning the effect of an atmosphere that warms with height on a hypothetical planet.

The drought - induced decline of carbon - dense tropical forests and their replacement by lower - carbon savannas would release enormous amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere, amplifying global warming far beyond the effects of just the CO2 released by burning fossil fuels.

Warming of the oceans leads to increased vertical stratification (decreased mixing between the different levels in the oceans), which would reduce CO2 uptake, in effect, reducing the oceanic volume available to CO2 absorption from the atmosphere.

This is a peer reviewed paper by respected scientists who are saying that aerosol forcing means that the majority of the warming caused by existing co2 emission has effectively been masked thus far, and that as aerosols remain in the atmosphere for far shorter a duration of time than co2, we will have already most likely crossed the 2 degree threshold that the G8 politicians have been discussing this week once the cooling effect of aerosols dissipate.

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.

This would actually not be true at sufficiently high latitudes in the winter hemisphere, except that some circulation in the upper atmosphere is driven by kinetic energy generated within the troposphere (small amount of energy involved) which, so far as I know, doesn't result in much of a global time average non-radiative energy flux above the tropopause, but it does have important regional effects, and the result is that the top of the stratosphere is warmer than the tropopause at all latitudes in all seasons so far as I know.

As more optical thickness is added to a «new» band, it will gain greater control over the temperature profile, but eventually, the equilibrium for that band will shift towards a cold enough upper atmosphere and warm enough lower atmosphere and surface, such that farther increases will cool the upper atmosphere or just that portion near TOA while warming the lower atmosphere and surface — until the optical thickness is so large (relative to other bands) that the band loses influence (except at TOA) and has little farther effect (except at TOA).

I'm not a cloud expert, and I may be describing this particular uncertainty inaccurately, but I use this as one example, and (unless this aspect of the science has changed in recent months) I believe that one aspect of uncertainty has to do with these clouds and their ultimate net effect as the atmosphere warms.

I'm pretty sure you can get the grey version of that into a strat - cooling / trop - warming situation if you pick the strat absorbers right, but Andy is certainly right that non-grey effects play a crucial role in explaining quantitatively what is going on in the real atmosphere (that's connected with the non-grey explanation for the anomalously cold tropopause which I have in Chapter 4, and also with the reason that aerosols do not produce stratospheric cooling, and everything depends a lot on what level you are looking at).

``... point out that cooling trends are exactly as predicted by increasing greenhouse gas trends,... It is interesting to note that significant solar forcing would have exactly the opposite effect (it would cause warming)» (of the upper atmosphere)

Until now, power plants have been allowed to dump unlimited amounts of carbon pollution into the atmosphere — no rules were in effect that limited their emissions of carbon dioxide, the primary driver of global warming.

It's also possible the upper region of atmosphere has larger effect from this warming.

Multiple people have pointed out to him that the mere fact that Venus is warmer than Mercury despite being farther from the sun, and that Earth is warmer than the moon, despite being the same distance from the sun, show conclusively that atmospheres do in fact result in warmer surface temperatures via the greenhouse effect.

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).

The fact that we sit at +15 C and not -15 C is definitive proof that water vapor is not removed from the atmosphere fast enough to not have an appreciable global warming / climate change effect.

Doesn't that mean, if CO2 is logrithmic in effect, that we should have already seen roughly 60 % of that warming by now (meaning we should be 1.14 C warmer now than when the atmosphere contained 280ppm?

Warming activists have tried to deal with this problem for their theory by asserting that over time a warmer atmosphere will have a warming effect on the Warming activists have tried to deal with this problem for their theory by asserting that over time a warmer atmosphere will have a warming effect on the warming effect on the oceans.

Black carbon pollution, from diesel engines, heavy industry and other sources, has a double warming effect, first in the atmosphere and then again when it settles, darkening white ice and accelerating melting, to disastrous effect.

@Kenneth: These planets obviously have internal energy sources if they are warmer than expected from the greenhouse effect than the composition of their (detectable) atmospheres.

To me all the witnesses and senators are obviously persons of consequence but I don't think your excerpt shows that anyone should think he takes issue with this statement — «No one questions that surface temperatures have increased overall since 1880, or that humans are adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, or that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have a warming effect on the planet.»

The history of climate change goes back much further: in the 19th century, physicists theorised about the role of greenhouse gases, chiefly carbon dioxide, in the atmosphere, and several suggested that the warming effect would increase alongside the levels of these gases in the atmosphere.

As Indur Goklany has shown, even assuming that the climate models on which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) accurately predict (rather than exaggerate by 2 to 3 times) the warming effect of added CO2 in the atmosphere, people the world over, and especially in developing countries, will be wealthier in warmer than in cooler scenarios, making them less vulnerable than today to all risks — including those related to climate.

That said, it is possible that the changes in the stratosphere are linked to the effects humans are having on the atmosphere at large, and that the drying may persist in providing a brake on warming.

Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric science at Texas A&M University, estimates that the U.S. has as many as 2,000 scientists who study global warming and its effects on the atmosphere, oceans, ecology, and other scientific fields.

The modeling and experimentation suggests that pumping CO2 into the atmosphere will have a warming effect, though how CO2 interacts with the various climate regulatory and feedback processes is extremely complicated and there's a great deal of work to do.

Third, whatever the cause of the Hale cycle as a component of HadCRUT3, it's obviously been there for as long as the Sun has had a rotating magnetic field (which accounts for both the Ney effect and the Birkeland current), so why would it contribute to global warming right when humans suddenly pump an incredible amount of CO2 into the atmosphere?

Of course feedbacks can have offsetting effects — but if you accept the radiative physics of AGW, then you believe that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes global warming.

With 2.2 trillion tons of CO2 already in the atmosphere (causing the severe earth - warming CO2 greenhouse effect), even if we stopped CO2 production completely, it would, still, take about 20 + years to bring atmospheric CO2 concentration into a normal range.

There are also numerous «fingerprints» which we would expect to see from an increased greenhouse effect (i.e. more warming at night, at higher latitudes, upper atmosphere cooling) that we have indeed observed (Figure 6).

«With increased methane into the atmosphere, the climate gets warmer faster, and early on it has a more intense effect on the whole climate.»