Sentences with phrase «cooling effect co2»

Could have net cooling effect CO2 uptake in the area of elevated methane release was enhanced, compared to surrounding waters.

Not exact matches

This was probably due to outgassing of CO2 from the warming oceans and the reverse effect when they cooled.

Emissions of both sulfur and black carbon will go down with the switch, which means that the power industry will lose small short - term cooling and warming effects, in addition to gaining the larger long - term cooling effect of lower CO2 emissions.

Together, physical and chemical weathering conspire to bring down mountains — and typically soak up CO2 in the process, but the overall magnitude of this climate - cooling effect has been long debated.

Stratospheric cooling as a result of excess CO2 does influence ozone recovery, and ozone changes in the troposphere and stratosphere to have effects on radiative balance of the planet.

No model gets very much cooling south of the Equator without the effect of CO2.

Be that as it may, all these studies, despite the large variety in data used, model structure and approach, have one thing in common: without the role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas, i.e. the cooling effect of the lower glacial CO2 concentration, the ice age climate can not be explained.

There's also no reason to assume that all that CO2 wouldn't stay in the atmosphere for millennia, either — meaning no «global cooling effect» after the fuel is gone.

but even if the current tooo - short - to - call cooling trend reverses, and it is proved that co2 MIGHT have some limited effect on planetary warming, then the question is, how much warming?

A similar effect occurs in the stratosphere, except that the negative energy imbalance now causes a cooling which causes less energy to be emitted by the CO2 (see para. 3 above).

Let me try to be more explicit: if you want to assume (or, if you prefer, conclude) that aerosols produced by the increased burning of fossil fuels after WWII had a cooling effect that essentially cancelled out the warming that would be expected as a result of the release of CO2 produced by that burning, then it's only logical to conclude that there exists a certain ratio between the warming and cooling effects produced by that same burning.

During that period, moreover, there were no constraints on the burning of coal whatsoever, thus no constraints on the production of the sort of aerosols currently claimed to have a cooling effect on the atmosphere strong enough to offset the effect of CO2 emission.

That is an argument for a bit of cooling due to natural cycles overcoming most of the warming effects of rapidly rising CO2.

It looks like the CH4 has an even greater cooling effect than the CO2 or am I not looking at this right?

So naively adding more CO2 will have a cooling effect moving the equilibrium temperature lower.

The question of why the stratosphere cools when the troposphere warms addresses an important validation point for the CO2 greenhouse effect, but the question as stated is ill posed in that the correct answer depends on the proverbial details.

If CO2's effect on climate has been exaggerated, and the globe is cooling for the short term, then for however long it is cooling, coal can sustain us until alternative energy is widespread.

Particle Pollution's Cooling Effect... Plus Death Interestingly, this particle pollution has the opposite effect on the climate as does the ship's carbon emissions: The particles have a cooling effect that is at least five times greater than the warming effect of the CO2 emiCooling Effect... Plus Death Interestingly, this particle pollution has the opposite effect on the climate as does the ship's carbon emissions: The particles have a cooling effect that is at least five times greater than the warming effect of the CO2 emisEffect... Plus Death Interestingly, this particle pollution has the opposite effect on the climate as does the ship's carbon emissions: The particles have a cooling effect that is at least five times greater than the warming effect of the CO2 emiseffect on the climate as does the ship's carbon emissions: The particles have a cooling effect that is at least five times greater than the warming effect of the CO2 emicooling effect that is at least five times greater than the warming effect of the CO2 emiseffect that is at least five times greater than the warming effect of the CO2 emiseffect of the CO2 emissions.

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.

In any event he says that CO2 actually produces a cooling effect.

Anyway, I'm wondering how the aerosol - cooling effect balances up against the soot - and - CO2 - warming effect in eastern Asia these days.

Let's see... many models show that aerosols could have been artificially keeping the world's average surface temperature cooler by about 3 - 5 degrees C from 1900 - 2000 --(sulfate aerosols certainly have some certifiable cooling effects cancelling out the warming effects of CO2).

And eventually as the far more massive ocean cooled it would be able to hold more dissolved CO2, so atmospheric CO2 would be drawn down, thus reducing the greenhouse effect further (even more energy out).

Hence, it is possible that incorporation of this multifaceted CO2 - induced cooling effect into the suite of equations that comprise the current generation of global climate models might actually tip the climatic scales in favor of global cooling in the face of continued growth of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.»

To elaborate on my comment # 3 above, the mechanism for stratospheric cooling consequent to increased atmospheric CO2 appears to be one of the most misunderstood elements of the greenhouse effect.

While we might HOPE FOR THE BEST — that there will be a cooling trend (less sun irradiance, etc) to exactly counteract our AGW trend (even so there is the negative effects of CO2, even without the warming — ocean acidification, crop loss to weed, etc)-- we should then be trying to AVERT THE WORST with even more drastic GHG cuts.

Before allowing the temperature to respond, we can consider the forcing at the tropopause (TRPP) and at TOA, both reductions in net upward fluxes (though at TOA, the net upward LW flux is simply the OLR); my point is that even without direct solar heating above the tropopause, the forcing at TOA can be less than the forcing at TRPP (as explained in detail for CO2 in my 348, but in general, it is possible to bring the net upward flux at TRPP toward zero but even with saturation at TOA, the nonzero skin temperature requires some nonzero net upward flux to remain — now it just depends on what the net fluxes were before we made the changes, and whether the proportionality of forcings at TRPP and TOA is similar if the effect has not approached saturation at TRPP); the forcing at TRPP is the forcing on the surface + troposphere, which they must warm up to balance, while the forcing difference between TOA and TRPP is the forcing on the stratosphere; if the forcing at TRPP is larger than at TOA, the stratosphere must cool, reducing outward fluxes from the stratosphere by the same total amount as the difference in forcings between TRPP and TOA.

This doesn't contradict the argument that, given present amounts, doubling CO2 should cause stratospheric cooling even without solar heating of the stratosphere (with the effect in the far wings being the opposite, and with the effect at the center of the band being restricted towards TOA).

The reduction in CO2 - cooling (of a layer between TOA and some other level) assumes the increased downward emission at the base of the layer from the non-CO2 absorber within the layer is greater than the decreased OLR at TOA, which is the absorption of radiation from below the layer minus the emission from the layer reaching TOA (refering to the «baseline effects» that would remain if the preexisting CO2 were removed).

How about this one: «Growth - enhancing effects of CO2 create an impetus for cooling.

They overestimate the effect of CO2, and now that the PDO has flipped to a 30 year cooling cycle, and the sun is quiescent, that will become obvious as time passes.

RE my 439 (If there were some prexisting non-CO2 absorption between the level and TOA, than the additional forcing that could be accomplished by doubling CO2 would be reduced, and more so at the lower level than at TOA, thus reducing the cooling effect on the layer from doubling CO2.)

Do you agree that when the heating effect of extra CO2 is due almost exclusively to what it itself absorbs from outside, but the cooling effect entails an ability to dissipate heat from the additional source, cooling can now outweigh warming?

Warming must occur below the tropopause to increase the net LW flux out of the tropopause to balance the tropopause - level forcing; there is some feedback at that point as the stratosphere is «forced» by the fraction of that increase which it absorbs, and a fraction of that is transfered back to the tropopause level — for an optically thick stratosphere that could be significant, but I think it may be minor for the Earth as it is (while CO2 optical thickness of the stratosphere alone is large near the center of the band, most of the wavelengths in which the stratosphere is not transparent have a more moderate optical thickness on the order of 1 (mainly from stratospheric water vapor; stratospheric ozone makes a contribution over a narrow wavelength band, reaching somewhat larger optical thickness than stratospheric water vapor)(in the limit of an optically thin stratosphere at most wavelengths where the stratosphere is not transparent, changes in the net flux out of the stratosphere caused by stratospheric warming or cooling will tend to be evenly split between upward at TOA and downward at the tropopause; with greater optically thickness over a larger fraction of optically - significant wavelengths, the distribution of warming or cooling within the stratosphere will affect how such a change is distributed, and it would even be possible for stratospheric adjustment to have opposite effects on the downward flux at the tropopause and the upward flux at TOA).

(If there were some prexisting non-CO2 absorption between the level and TOA, than the additional forcing that could be accomplished by doubling CO2 would be reduced, and more so at the lower level than at TOA, thus reducing the cooling effect on the layer from doubling CO2.)

Your estimates of climate sensitivity come from the IPCC, which assumes that aerosols will continue to provide a very strong cooling effect that offsets about half of the warming from CO2, but you are talking about time frames in which we have stopped burning fossil fuels, so is it appropriate to continue to assume the presence of cooling aerosols at these future times?

We can divide the atmosphere into a lower part (LP), which includes the surface and is the source of IR, and an upper part (UP), which we are asked to assume will cool when CO2 increases, in conjunction with the expected warming of LP from the enhanced greenhouse effect.

From sheer thermal inertia of the oceans, but also because if you close down all coal power stations etc., aerosol pollution in the atmosphere, which has a sizeable cooling effect, will go way down, while CO2 stays high.

It would provide a partial explanation for not only the «pause» but 1910 - 1940 warming (mostly natural), the 1940 - 1980 (cooling / static period offset by increasing (but lower) CO2 effects), and the 1980 - 1998 warm period (natural and ever increasing anthropogenic effects).

«Since increased concentrations of CO2 can lead to global warming, some people have proposed increasing the emission of SO2 to stabilize the temperature because of the cooling effect of this gas.

Has anyone been able to separate the effects of the natural warming - cooling cycles, of which the earth has had numerous for aeons, from the effects of the recent rise in CO2?

If something triggers a cool spell, such as an orbital variation reducing incident sunlight, then water freezes at the poles, which increases the Earth's albedo, while the cooler oceans absorb more CO2, reducing the greenhouse effect.

So, unless you can provide me with the balance sheet, taking into account all the factors that I mention in my dissertation, WE don't know if the net effect of more CO2 in the atmosphere is that of warming, cooling, or simply (close to) zero.

Difference between nighttime lows and daytime highs decreasing Warming of the planet since 1880 40 % rise in Atmospheric CO2 since ~ 1800 Underlying physics of the Greenhouse effect Cooling of the Stratosphere (consistent with operation of Greenhouse Eeffect Cooling of the Stratosphere (consistent with operation of Greenhouse EffectEffect)

There is absolutely no reason to believe that this effect will do anything but get stronger from here on as the vast «crops» of oceanic bacteria adapt to both warmer ocean waters and increased CO2 and nutrient levels and simply increasingly cool the global atmospheric climate simply by «growing faster»!

Basically, they are shit - scared that this «CO2 fertilization» effect (mentioned with scarcely concealed fear and loathing in the IPCC Group 1 2007 report — not that you sceptical lot would have noticed) is the «smoking gun» of the last decade which has started delivering a flat lining in warming and more recently even cooling.

The CO2 dependence on temperature is between 2 - 4 ppmv / °C, that is based on the effect of the cooling caused by the 1992 outburst of the Pinatubo and the 1998 warming of a strong El Niño.

Then you say: «Your last item [Cooling of the Stratosphere consistent with operation of Greenhouse Effect] is just enhanced radiative cooling due to increasCooling of the Stratosphere consistent with operation of Greenhouse Effect] is just enhanced radiative cooling due to increascooling due to increased CO2.

@Ferdinand: You write: «The CO2 dependence on temperature is between 2 - 4 ppmv / °C, that is based on the effect of the cooling caused by the 1992 outburst of the Pinatubo and the 1998 warming of a strong El Niño.»

henry says with all due respect, I say that nobody has conclusively proven, to me, at least, that the net effect of more CO2 is that of warming rather than cooling.