Sentences with phrase «effect on atmospheric temperature»

The argument about clouds is even simpler: Clouds affect upward and downward radiation roughly equally, so cloud changes have negligible effect on atmospheric temperature.

Radiative gases have a critical role in the fluid dynamics of the atmosphere and this has a significant effect on atmospheric temperature.

tallbloke (12:38:29): RICH (05:57:14): If CO2 had the effect on atmospheric temperature that is claimed we would see it as an increase throughout the atmosphere.

The 6-fold increase in hydrocarbon use since 1940 has had no noticeable effect on atmospheric temperature...» (Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide)

The 6-fold increase in hydrocarbon use since 1940 has had no noticeable effect on atmospheric temperature...» -LRB-

Of course, we argue elsewhere that man - made global warming theory is invalid (see our Start here page for more details), and that carbon dioxide (CO2) increases have no effect on atmospheric temperatures, let alone ocean temperatures.

This effect is why a lower surface Tmin has less effect on atmospheric temperatures that static atmosphere AGW calculations would indicate.

My claim is that radiative gases have a very definite effect on atmospheric temperatures.

JW comment — What is in debate is the process (my words above) has a net effect on atmospheric temperatures when all other atmospheric conditions and processes are involved.

Nothing Australia does will have any appreciable effect on atmospheric temperatures that might cause net damage to Australians» welfare (or anyone else's) or on sea levels which might be bad for Australia; 3.

The 6-fold increase in hydrocarbon use and CO2 production since 1940 has had no noticeable effect on atmospheric temperatures.

I am also sceptical of the statement that clouds have a negligible effect on atmospheric temperatures.

Not exact matches

The setting gave scientists the rare opportunity to look at the impact of pollution on atmospheric processes in a largely pre-industrial environment and pinpoint the effects of the particles apart from other factors such as temperature and humidity.

Despite its smaller ash cloud, El Chichn emitted more than 40 times the volume of sulfur - rich gases produced by Mt. St. Helens, which revealed that the formation of atmospheric sulfur aerosols has a more substantial effect on global temperatures than simply the volume of ash produced during an eruption.

But even the first step of modeling the effects of greenhouse gas sources and sinks on future temperatures requires input from atmospheric scientists, oceanographers, ecologists, economists, policy analysts, and others.

Yet there is no doubt that research into atmospheric aerosols is becoming increasingly important due to the effects that they can have on the global temperature of Earth, given that solar radiation is the main source of energy for Earth - Atmosphere system.

It is well - established in the scientific community that increases in atmospheric CO2 levels result in global warming, but the magnitude of the effect may vary depending on average global temperature.

Much study has focused on the effects these rising carbon dioxide levels could have on weather patterns and global temperatures, but could elevated atmospheric CO2 levels negatively affect the nutritional value of the food we grow?

As the authors point out, even if the whole story comes down to precipitation changes which favor ablation, the persistence of these conditions throughout the 20th century still might be an indirect effect of global warming, via the remote effect of sea surface temperature on atmospheric circulation.

Can you relate that to works like «Effect of CO2 line width on 15 μm atmospheric emission», B. Kivel et al. (1976), which use the emission from CO2 to explore the Troposphere temperature?

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.

In the same tone as the last post regarding atmospheric contaminants, have to wonder whether an era of widespread constant combustion across the globe, and all the waste heat from that combustion, would have any effect on the global mean temperature.

This elegant, self - regulatory, atmospheric mechanism was soon attacked for being based on limited data and the inability of other researchers to identify the effect in other cloud and temperature data sets.

Considering that the mechanism of the «natural AMO» is so poorly understood, there's no justification for immediately blaming increases in hurricane activity on it while entirely ignoring global warming effects on sea surface temperatures (and atmospheric moisture), for which very clear mechanisms do exist.

If so, I think we want to include tightly coupled chemical and biological processes, in that case — for example, the chemical fate of atmospheric methane over time, the effects of increasing atmospheric CO2 on oceanic acid - base chemistry, and the response of the biological components of the carbon cycle to increased temperatures and a changing hydrologic cycle.

Although the elevated concentrations of atmospheric CO2 that raise temperature can also raise crop yields, the detrimental effect of higher temperatures on yields overrides the CO2 fertilization effect for the major crops.

Radiatively warmed (whether directly or indirectly through collisions) molecules are placed higher in the atmospheric column than can be explained just from their individual gas constants and once at that height have an enhanced cooling effect equal to their enhanced warming effect with a zero net effect on surface temperature.

A facile illustration of the effects of atmospheric pressure on the surface temperatures of a planet like Earth can be found in the Grand Canyon, Southwestern U.S.. There, the North Rim is about 1,000 feet (305 meters) higher in elevation than the South Rim.

It's truly mind - boggling how a change by a mere few parts per million of trace atmospheric gases can have such a huge effect on the surface temperature.

-- Susan Solomon, Nature The Long Thaw is written for anyone who wishes to know what cutting - edge science tells us about the modern issue of global warming and its effects on the pathways of atmospheric chemistry, as well as global and regional temperatures, rainfall, sea level, Arctic sea - ice coverage, melting of the continental ice sheets, cyclonic storm frequency and intensity and ocean acidification.

So how can we tell what effect CO2 is having on temperatures, and if the increase in atmospheric CO2 is really making the planet warmer?

Unless more CO2 from human sources could increase total atmospheric density it could not have a significant effect on global tropospheric temperature.

So even assuming that reductions of human - induced CO2 emissions would have any effect on atmospheric CO2 levels, the reductions would not influence global temperatures according to the Wallace et al., 2016 study.

In fact, the best current studies show that increases in atmospheric CO2 levels have no significant effects on global temperatures and encourage plant growth.

Would a drop in temperature of the upper atmosphere of say 500 °F have no effect on surface temperatures or atmospheric circulation patterns?

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

Even so, Mann said, certain predictions are based on physics and chemistry that are so fundamental, such as the atmospheric greenhouse effect, that the resulting predictions — that surface temperatures should warm, ice should melt and sea level should rise — are robust no matter the assumptions.

But what if decreases in atmospheric CO2 levels have no significant effect on global temperatures?

More CO2 has no effect on temperature average, only on temperature range (day to day, season to season, etc) just like the effect of atmospheric water.

These include the effects that trees have on local atmospheric chemistry and potentially the clouds above them; until these are fully understood it is somewhat difficult to attribute a «temperature benefit» of a specific magnitude to a given afforestation scenario.

In fact, recent research shows that changes in atmospheric CO2 levels have no significant effect on global temperatures.

By examining the spatial pattern of both types of climate variation, the scientists found that the anthropogenic global warming signal was relatively spatially uniform over the tropical oceans and thus would not have a large effect on the atmospheric circulation, whereas the PDO shift in the 1990s consisted of warming in the tropical west Pacific and cooling in the subtropical and east tropical Pacific, which would enhance the existing sea surface temperature difference and thus intensify the circulation.

The big debate about CO2's effect on global surface - level air temperatures is what will happen when atmospheric CO2 doubles in concentration from pre-industrial times, i.e., increases from 0.026 % (280 ppm) of the atmosphere to 0.056 % (560 ppm).

At present levels of atmospheric CO2 increases to the CO2 have no significant effect on global temperature.

So, as the empirical measurements which I cited for you show, at present levels of atmospheric CO2 increases to the CO2 have no significant effect on global temperature.

Climate skeptic scientists have long questioned whether the effects of relatively minor (compared to other CO2 sources and sinks) human - caused emissions of CO2 have more than a minor effect on global temperatures and some have even questioned whether the UN and USEPA have even gotten the causation backwards (i.e., because on balance global temperatures affect atmospheric CO2 levels).

Fourth, a recent study concludes that the basic alarmist hypothesis is scientifically incorrect by showing that increases in atmospheric CO2 levels have no statistically significant effect on global temperatures.

[Shaviv and Veizer, 2003] conclude that the effect of a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration on tropical sea surface temperatures (SST) is likely to be 0.5 ºC (up to 1.9 ºC at 99 % confidence), with global mean temperature changes about 1.5 times as large.

Non existent greenhouse gas forcing has no effect on the atmosphere — or anything else for that matter — while actual heat from any source appears to heat the gases of the atmosphere, as evidenced by the fact that the atmospheric temperature exists.

The basic point and the one relevant to climate change, is still relevant — oceans still have an enormous moderating effect on temperature over time (though if there is a huge increase or decrease in re radiated atmospheric heat it is going to then affect the oceans initially).