[1]
The direct warming effect attributable to a doubling of CO2 — absent all other factors, which is assumed to be equal to 1.2 degrees Celsius.
BTW: There is no physical evidence that the assumption of a net positive feedback is correct, and much physical evidence to suggest that the real world feedbacks are net negative and will reduce the proposed
direct warming effect of CO2 towards (closer too) 0.
Professor William Happer of Princeton, one of the world's foremost physicists, says computer models of climate rely on the assumption of the CO2's
direct warming effect that is about a factor two higher, owing to incorrect representation of the microphysical interactions of CO2 molecules with other infrared photons.
The direct warming effect of CO2 is relatively small, and only becomes dominant through positive feedbacks in computer models.
Not exact matches
There is a
direct connection between the current changes in the world's atmosphere and the rise in average temperature; this is known as global
warming or the «greenhouse
effect».
But in order to enjoy the cooling and
warming effect of the pillow,
direct contact is recommended.
«We found that vegetation change may have a greater impact on the amount of stream flow in the Sierra than the
direct effects of climate
warming,» said lead author Ryan Bart, a postdoctoral researcher at UCSB's Bren School of Environmental Science & Management.
Volk: Yeah, yeah that's becoming more and more of a concern as people are realizing that there is not just the greenhouse
effect of CO2 being a greenhouse gas and
warming the Earth up, but there is a
direct chemical
effect of its dissolving in the ocean as carbonic acid, and this is going to affect many marine creatures in the coming decades.
A recent study published in Scientific Reports, led by researchers of the University of Barcelona in collaboration with several other research institutions, shows that the
direct effect of climate change in regulating fuel moisture (droughts leading to larger fires) is expected to be dominant, regarding the indirect
effect of antecedent climate on fuel load and structure - that is,
warmer / drier conditions that determine fuel availability.
The Sun has both
direct and indirect influences over the Earth's temperature, and we can evaluate whether these
effects could be responsible for a significant amount of the recent global
warming.
Remember that
direct greenhouse
effect from CO2 is quite small; the predictions rely on positive feedback from other
effects (particularly water vapour feedbacks, a far more significant greenhouse gas) to cause substantial
warming.
Direct effects are impacts to trees that arise directly in response to changes in temperature and precipitation; indirect
effects are secondary impacts, such as increased number of fires associated with
warming temperatures, which then affect trees and forests.
-- 7) Forest models for Montana that account for changes in both climate and resulting vegetation distribution and patterns; 8) Models that account for interactions and feedbacks in climate - related impacts to forests (e.g., changes in mortality from both
direct increases in
warming and increased fire risk as a result of
warming); 9) Systems thinking and modeling regarding climate
effects on understory vegetation and interactions with forest trees; 10) Discussion of climate
effects on urban forests and impacts to cityscapes and livability; 11) Monitoring and time - series data to inform adaptive management efforts (i.e., to determine outcome of a management action and, based on that outcome, chart future course of action); 12) Detailed decision support systems to provide guidance for managing for adaptation.
Direct effects of climate change on trees and forests, such as
warmer, wetter conditions improving forest productivity or
warmer, drier conditions increasing tree mortality, will be secondary to the impacts of altered forest disturbance regimes, such as changes in forest fire behavior and area burned.
In addition to the
direct impacts of rapid Arctic
warming — most notably the loss of sea ice — scientists also think that it could be having an indirect
effect on weather patterns in the mid-latitude regions of the northern hemisphere.
«The
warming effect could be through the
direct heating to the air, snow and sea ice by absorbing sunlight, and then accelerating the melting of snow and sea ice,» Wang said.
Other factors would include: — albedo shifts (both from ice > water, and from increased biological activity, and from edge melt revealing more land, and from more old dust coming to the surface...); —
direct effect of CO2 on ice (the former weakens the latter); — increasing, and increasingly
warm, rain fall on ice; — «stuck» weather systems bringing more and more
warm tropical air ever further toward the poles; — melting of sea ice shelf increasing mobility of glaciers; — sea water getting under parts of the ice sheets where the base is below sea level; — melt water lubricating the ice sheet base; — changes in ocean currents -LRB-?)
So the mechanism of global
warming is an indirect
effect of increasing CO2, not the
direct effect of
warming the atmosphere as is generally believed.
black soot has also been found by a recent university of california study to be the
direct cause of the albedo
warming effect on the otherwise highly reflective and pristine white arctic ice & snow.
In addition to the
direct effects of
warming temperatures, there are indirect
effects of climate change.
The Skeptical Science site refers to a paper by Flanner in 2009, a summary of which can be found here http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/tss/ahf/, that shows the
direct heat from burning fossil fuels is just 1 % of the
effect of the CO2 produced by this burning on the absorption of heat by the atmosphere from the sun, i.e. global
warming.
The logic of their grand thesis runs something like this: - ☻ Lacis et al (2010) calculates that LL GHG forcing in the pre-industrial world provided a
direct warming equal to 25 % of the 35 °C of greenhouse
effect they model.
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 include any solar - heating (albedo, etc.) feedbacks, which is necessary for a
direct comparison; the GHE
warming of about 33 K is only the
effect of the atmopheric LW optical thickness, and thus doesn't include any feedbacks on solar heating)
with respect to the
direct effect of the sun on arctic meltinc, i failed to mention that sunspot activity has been directly correlated to
warming and cooling trends over the course of geohistory.
Coral reefs are under stress for several reasons, including
warming of the ocean, but especially because of ocean acidification, a
direct effect of added carbon dioxide.
What is the
effect of
warmer Antarctic waters on Antarctic ice that is in
direct contact with that
warmer water?
First is that it is highly unlikely that climate
warming, alone, will have substantial
direct effects on hot wars and other national security risks.
What climate models assume is a wide - ranging compendium of physical processes that are either well known but too complicated to incorporate into the climate model (for example the
direct radiational
effect of Carbon Dioxide on greenhouse
warming is considerably * simplified * compared to the most sophisticated «line - by - line» radiation models that are available, simply because there isn't enough computer power to make the line - by - line calculation at every location on Earth at every time step within in a GCM), or are not sufficiently well - known to treat them with complete certainty.
While there are
direct ways in which CO2 is a pollutant (acidification of the ocean), its primary impact is its greenhouse
warming effect.
This research & paper found * * * * * * * «
direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse
effect» and
Warming on Earth.
The actual evidence of lives lost due to the already occurring
direct and indirect
effects of global
warming should be completely ignored.
These
effects roughly balance each other out, leading to a
direct relationship between the total amount of CO2 emitted over a given time period and
warming.
******* Thus the paper found empirical «
direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse
effect» and Earth
Warming.
** Thus these research studies & papers found «
direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse
effect» and Global
Warming.
Yet that still excludes the acceleration of Permafrost Melt both by its own emissions»
warming effect and by its
direct and timelagged reinforcement by other major feedbacks.
Since the heart of the AGW proposition is that CO2 has a
direct effect on
warming, the observational evidence that shows no
warming is not something you can ignore.
Because, all the real world measurements taken of downwelling longwave, thermal, infrared are now attributed as «from the atmosphere» and not from the Sun
direct, beam, and therefore bounced back by these claimed greenhouse gases and so real rises in amount, as for example in the recent
warming period we had from the Sun's activity, are fraudulently attributed to Greenhouse
Effect backradiation.
Warming from the BC - albedo
effect was similar in magnitude to the cooling from the
direct effect.
One of the unfortunate side
effects of which was that (and this is not necessarily your field's fault in the
direct sense) every two - bit environmental activist, campaigner, and pressure group took it as license to fully politicize the science with naive and exaggerated claims about the «
effects» of global
warming (apparently it's responsible for everything), or where the «tipping point» was (30 years, no 20 years, no 10 years, etc.) or how quickly we could «de-carbonize» our economy (50 % reduction in 40 years, no 70 % in 30 years, no 90 % in 15 years).
With the transformation of a Pacific typhoon into an extra tropical cyclone we can easily see a
direct link between a
warmer Pacific and he coming outbreak of cold weather next week in the US.The
effect on the jet stream is the key.
R. Gates: With the transformation of a Pacific typhoon into an extra tropical cyclone we can easily see a
direct link between a
warmer Pacific and he coming outbreak of cold weather next week in the US.The
effect on the jet stream is the key.
The IPCC estimates that carbon dioxide's
direct effect is 1.2 °C 1 of
warming (that is, before feedbacks are taken into account) for each doubling of the carbon dioxide level.
However the question is specifically chosen to make (luke --RRB-
warmers (and the question was
directed at Mindert) think inductively about the so - called Greenhouse
Effect.
Direct warming from the greenhouse gas
effect of CO2 does not create a catastrophe, and at most, according to the IPCC, might
warm the Earth another degree over the next century.
If the
direct effect of the aerosol increase is considered, surface temperatures will not get as
warm because the aerosols reflect solar radiation.
We'd expect some improvement from adding CO2 overall, since its
direct effects would account for perhaps 30 % of the
warming.
It's also one of the reasons that I linked to Hoffman et al at Bart's in the first place... None of this changes the fact that global
warming is going to be a huge hit on planetary biodiversity further into this century, and over coming centuries, both through
direct effects and through exacerbation of other non-climate-change impacts.
Therefore mitigating global
warming will address both the synergistic harm that it wreaks in concert with the non-climate damage to the environment, and it will address the
direct effect that it will have on species and ecosystem - an
effect that, if
warming is not properly addressed for a few more decades, will make all other human impacts pale by comparison.
«In summary, our results emphasize the significant role of remote oceanic influences, rather than the
direct local
effect of anthropogenic radiative forcings, in the recent continental
warming.