Sentences with phrase «atmospheric gases then»

Not exact matches

Since each of the infrared - absorbing atmospheric gases has its own unique absorption spectrum, the total infrared absorption capacity of the atmosphere is then due to the real - time concentration and distribution of all the gases in the atmosphere, from the surface to the stratosphere.

In another set of experiments, they coated the sulfate particles with atmospheric products of α - pinene, the gas responsible for that distinctive pine tree smell, and then added IEPOX.

Then the scientists divided the «atmospheric» spectrum by the star's «clean» spectrum to determine the gas composition and density of the atmosphere at different altitudes, as well as temperatures.

The team then used these data to calculate the difference between the speed of the atmospheric gas at different positions on the star and the average speed over the entire star.

If we knew ocean heat uptake as well as we know atmospheric temperature change, then we could pin down fairly well the radiative imbalance at the top of the atmosphere, which would give us a fair indication of how much warming is «in the pipeline» given current greenhouse gas concentrations.

Since each of the infrared - absorbing atmospheric gases has its own unique absorption spectrum, the total infrared absorption capacity of the atmosphere is then due to the real - time concentration and distribution of all the gases in the atmosphere, from the surface to the stratosphere.

I assume that the ultimate atmospheric temperature is then dictated (approximately) by the ideal gas law, PV = nRT at the different elevations, and pegged to ~ 255 K at the ~ 10,000 m TOA energy balance point.

The Solomon Committee report amplifies this conclusion when it confirms that we observe, in any year, only 50 % of the warming to which we have committed the planet by allowing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases to rise to the then current level.

Re 423 Chris G — whether the effect saturates at a given density depends on the way the temperature is distributed; if the temperature from TOA downward is isothermal for a sufficient thickness, than the effect could be saturated at TOA (if starting from a large enough optical thickness per unit atmospheric mass path, a change in the density of the gas / etc that contributes optical thickness would then have little to no effect on the flux at TOA, which is what is meant by saturation.

If you accept that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that human fossil fuel use is now the dominant contributor to atmospheric CO2 changes, then knowing how much global temperatures respond to increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is important for understanding the future climate.

Looking in a textbook about atmospheric physics, meteorology or climate physics it is getting quite clear that atmospheres are more complex then just reducing their thermal structure on the effects of solar radiation and greenhouse gases alone.

In both cases, methane gas bubbles to the surface with little or no oxidation, entering the atmosphere as CH4 — a powerful greenhouse gas which increases local, then Arctic atmospheric and ocean temperature, resulting in progressively deeper and larger deposits of clathrate melting.

«It is possible that an increase in concentration of atmospheric gases which absorb the outgoing infrared radiation could result in a rise in average global temperature,» William McCollam, Jr., then president of EEI, admitted to Congress in 1989.

Then why all the discussion and angst about human trace addition to the level of a trace atmospheric gas: CO2?

There are two separate issues: the correct radiative transfer model, then the correct ambient atmospheric conditions (H20 and other trace gases, temperature profiles, cloud properties, etc.).

Since then, satellite reading of temperatures and the occlusion of numerous infrared bands, ground based, aircraft and balloon measurements of same, and an ever - increasing data base of the optical properties of CO2 (and other gases, like water vapour), have helped refine radiation calculations towards determining the atmospheric heat budget.

If the models are properly simulating the relationship between sea surface temperatures and atmospheric water vapor, then the models have too much water vapor (natural greenhouse gas) in their atmospheres.

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

Likewise if anything not dealt with by the Gas Laws seeks to alter atmospheric volume then the gas constant immediately alters T to stabilisGas Laws seeks to alter atmospheric volume then the gas constant immediately alters T to stabilisgas constant immediately alters T to stabilise V

He mixed a few atmospheric gases, and then bombarded them with UV rays and heavy electrons.

If the Earth's greenhouse is caused by the forcing model used by climate scientists, then the GHE should be very stable over the course of the year because overall there is little change to the atmospheric concentration of the greenhouse gases that cause the GHE in the forcing model that they use.

-- It seems perfectly reasonable to me that if we imagine the surface never emits that energy in the first place, - energy that is stored in the surface and just below, i.e. oceans, lakes, rivers, ground, and air, — just to mention a few, then any surface temperature change would be completely reliant on variations in Solar irradiation and advection mainly by Water Vapor (WV) but also by other GHGs that have the ability to contain more heat than the rest of the atmospheric gases.

It seems perfectly reasonable to me that if we imagine the surface never emits that energy in the first place, - energy that is stored in the surface and just below, i.e. oceans, lakes, rivers, ground, and air, — just to mention a few, then any surface temperature change would be completely reliant on variations in Solar irradiation and advection mainly by Water Vapor (WV) but also by other GHGs that have the ability to contain more heat than the rest of the atmospheric gases.

Even then, the world may have to invest in sci - fi technologies like atmospheric carbon dioxide removal to keep greenhouse gases at safe levels.

Regarding long term outcomes, I tend to agree with flxible that even short term outcomes don't look good but it seems to me that Wasdell is at least showing that if the international community wants to avoid 2C (because of some arbitrary idea of where dangerous climate change will kick in, agreed on years ago) then it can't do it without removing atmospheric greenhouse gases and so any notion that some emissions reduction agreement can do the trick are delusions.

[39] A 2014 analysis, however, states that although methane's initial impact is about 100 times greater than that of CO2, because of the shorter atmospheric lifetime, after six or seven decades, the impact of the two gases is about equal, and from then on methane's relative role continues to decline.

Beginning (near the turn of the 20th century) with the theoretical studies of Svante Arrhenius about how infrared absorbing gases help determine the surface temperature of the earth; then spurred by the reexamination of those models in the 1950's, by Roger Revelle, and in the 1960's, by Jule Charney; and then James Hansen's modeling of the unique green - house - gas (GHG) forcing of the very hot atmospheric temperature of Venus — climatologists and geophysicists began to vigorously reexamine such models in greater detail.

The (slightly heated) atmospehric gases now radiate a complete thermal spectrum continuum, depending ONLY on the atmospheric Temperature; AND THEN the CO2 or other GHG molecule can re-engage with THAT spectrum, and once again carve out its specific absorption band chunk.

If emissions are increasing at a rate over 20 times greater than the increase in concentration then it is clear that human emissions are not primarily responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration and consequentially not primarily responsible for global warming for those who subscribe to the Greenhouse Gas hypothesis of global warming.