Sentences with phrase «atmospheric gases do»

It absorbs radiation and emits it, just like all other atmospheric gases do.

At these high altitudes, the residual atmospheric gases do in fact become sorted into strata according to molecular mass, as de Bort had earlier conjectured for the stratosphere.»

Climatologist David Legates explains why the influence of atmospheric gasses does not necessarily reflect their proportion in the atmosphere.

Not exact matches

A switch to natural gas won't do Kenneth Caldeira, an atmospheric scientist at the Carnegie Institution for Science, said EPA's actions have to be the first step, and the agency needs to take similar steps every two years or so.

The measurement method using the harmonic interferometer that we have developed does not depend upon gas composition used when plasma is produced, as compared to other electron density diagnostic methods for atmospheric pressure low - temperature plasma.

If humanity does not act to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels will continue to climb and Earth's average temperature will escalate.

... The Earth's atmospheric methane concentration has increased by about 150 % since 1750, and it accounts for 20 % of the total radiative forcing from all of the long - lived and globally mixed greenhouse gases (these gases don't include water vapor which is by far the largest component of the greenhouse effect).

Previous proofs have relied on complex climate models, but this proof doesn't need such models — just careful observations of the land, ocean and atmospheric gases.»

The importance of heterogeneous human climate forcings does not diminish the important of added greenhouse gases, but does indicate that more attention needs to be given to these other human climate forcings, including how they can modify atmospheric and ocean circulation features.

A water based system doesn't achieve much, as the oceans participate in weather and climate, but aren't the primary driving forces, which are global atmospheric circulation patterns and greenhouse gases etc..

What has happened to atmospheric concentrations of CO 2 and other infrared - absorbing gases so far and what have these gases to do with human activity?

if the numbers of animals that are raised for human purposes remains relatively constant, the atmospheric greenhouse gas load doesn't change at all from this source.

The radiative transfer problem is best addressed numerically with a sufficient number of vertical layers to resolve the atmospheric temperature and absorber distributions and with a sufficient number of spectral intervals to resolve the spectral dependence of the contributing gases — as is being done in most GCMs.

This works for biofuels, as growing crops absorb atmospheric CO2 and convert it to sugars, oils, etc., leading to no net change in atmospheric CO2 when the fuel is burned — but it does not work for coal, oil or natural gas, however.

A water based system doesn't achieve much, as the oceans participate in weather and climate, but aren't the primary driving forces, which are global atmospheric circulation patterns and greenhouse gases etc..

The majority (99.9 %) of atmospheric gases nitrogen, oxygen and argon do not absorb IR.

How does arrogance or any other personal attitudinal trait on anyone's part affect the scientific evidence for global warming due to increasing atmospheric concentrations of IR - excitable gases like CO2?

The document goes from arguing that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, to arguing that the greenhouse effect does not exist, to arguing that the greenhouse effect exists, but atmospheric CO2 is saturated.

The analogy that increasing atmospheric CO2 acts like a greenhouse has been shattered with the grand debunking of an old experiment, proving Al Gore does not know his gas from a hole in a bottle.

The radiative characteristics of greenhouse gases do not alter surface temperature but instead affect atmospheric volume and circulation.

Moreover, notice that many sceptics do not take issue with the propositions that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, much of the increase in atmospheric CO2 can be attributed to industry, that this warming will likely cause a change in the climate, and that this may well cause problems.

How can the earth be radiating a crude BB type spectrum corresponding to the surface Temperature when Trenberth claims that only 40 W / m ^ 2 escapes to space in the atmospheric window, and folks insist that the main body of the atmosphere (gases) does not emit thermal radiation.

If they did not soak up any CO2, atmospheric CO2 levels would be much higher than the current level of 355 parts per million by volume (ppmv)- probably around 500 - 600 ppmv.Plankton influence the exchange of gases between the atmosphere and the sea.

WE DO NOT KNOW THE LONG TERM EFFECTS THESE HIGH LEVELS OF ATMOSPHERIC GASES WILL HAVE ON OURSELVES, OUR CHILDREN, our livestock & pets.

I would equally interested fo people who believe «global warming» affirming clearly that they don't believe that an excited CO2 molecule increases the kinetic energy of atmospheric gases in any significant degree.

But this requirement does nothing to stabilize the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases.

As the Spencer - Christy method to measure atmospheric temperatures was being developed — a method that would permit scientists to test the greenhouse gas warming hypothesis in the Charney Report — international organizations did not wait to act.

Do you not accept that H2O is a greenhouse gas and influences temperature, or that the atmospheric concentration is temperature dependant; or both?

A buffer capacity calculation should show that its impossible to acidify the ocean unless CO2 became the dominate atmospheric gas; surely someone has done such a calculation.

If scientists of the past had known that the temperature of every planet with a sufficient atmosphere rises along with atmospheric pressure, and always exceeds its predicted temperature, do you think they would have come up with a theory that attributed extra heating to the presence of certain trace gases that occupy less than 1 percent of the Earth's atmosphere?

Or a 30 C surface [say sand or concrete] doesn't heat the atmospheric gases very well.

We do not need models to anticipate that significant rises in atmospheric CO2 concentrations harbor the potential to raise temperatures significantly (Fourier, 1824, Arrhenius, 1896), nor that the warming will cause more water to evaporate (confirmed by satellite data), nor that the additional water will further warm the climate, nor that this effect will be partially offset by latent heat release in the troposphere (the «lapse - rate feedback»), nor that greenhouse gas increases will warm the troposphere but cool the stratosphere, while increases in solar intensity will warm both — one can go on and on

We do not have data on human CH4, N2O and CFC emissions over the period, but we do have published measurements of the atmospheric concentration of each gas.

However, I do not believe that the evidence shows the climate is so easily perturbed by small changes in atmospheric gasses or even particulates.

Scientists who have focused on WG 1 issues are doing good work in framing boundaries and I think finally we will see saner descriptions of atmospheric sensitivity and attribution of anthropogenic contributions other than CO2e gases.

Much of this IR is at wavelengths at which other atmospheric constituents do not interact, so if CO2 is exposed to a warmer surface like the earth, it will absorb radiation that would otherwise pass through into the cold of space AND likewise if CO2 is exposed to the cool of outer space it will emit vast quantities of IR at wavelengths which other gases can not emit.

The paper mention that considerable amount energy is lost in higher atmospheric elevation - this must have to mostly be regarding «greenhouse gases» as non-greenhouse do not radiate a significant amount of energy, so I question this assertion.

Does the atmospheric pressure, no GH gases, effect the overall equilibrium temperature of the near surface of a planet?

Most CM experiments based on RCPs will be driven by greenhouse gas concentrations (Hibbard et al. 2007).8 Furthermore, many Earth system models do not contain a full atmospheric chemistry model, and thus require exogenous inputs of three - dimensional distributions for reactive gases, oxidant fields, and aerosol loadings.

Never — in all the mathematics I studied and used — did any mathematical formula ever calculate temperature of some gas or atmospheric mix then have to refer to a» green house effect» because the laws of

There's also a reason you don't want to talk about atmospheric chemistry proper, as it's in all the textbooks on earth, regarding calculation of the temperature of gases and air.

Because of the strong correlation between the TLC reflection feedback and ECS in models, these results imply that, remarkably, almost half of the ECS variance across models can be accounted for by simulations that do not involve any perturbation of the atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations (Fig. 3).

All climate protection projects share the same goal of reducing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, but high quality projects are capable of doing much more than just combating climate change.

That just proves that human use of natural gas has nothing measurable to do with atmospheric methane levels.

For some time, the EU (supported by other parties) had been pushing for the adoption of «global pathways» that were in line with the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) findings: these included ensuring that global atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations stayed below 450 ppm (parts per million) and that we do not allow for a temperature increase above 2 degrees.

Despite a half century of climate change that has significantly affected temperature and precipitation patterns and has already had widespread ecological and hydrological impacts, and despite a near certainty that the United States will experience at least as much climate change in the coming decades, just as a result of the current atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, those organizations in the public and private sectors that are most at risk, that are making long - term investments and commitments, and that have the planning, forecasting and institutional capacity to adapt, have not yet done so.

Excerpt: Essentially the site exists to promote global warming alarm - ism and attack anyone who does not agree with their declaration of doomsday (proven of course by their own computer climate models) and the need for government intervention against the life supporting, atmospheric trace gas, carbon dioxide.

Instead of fixing the black carbon (soot) pollution they are responsible for, the EU activists continue to rail about the atmospheric trace gas CO2, which, by the way, doesn't melt glaciers, sea ice or polar ice sheet caps.

The Montreal Protocol may have prevented the atmospheric concentrations of chlorine from getting worse by getting rid of CFCs in developed countries (but the black market will ensure they are readily available in developing countries for years to come unless more is done soon), and because the CFCs are enormously powerful greenhouse gases (5000 - 11,000 time more powerful than CO2, in round figures) Montreal has done 5 times more to abate emissions than Kyoto will in the first commitment period.

«Stabilising» atmospheric gases will do nothing to stop racism, nor will it create a world free of inequality.