Sentences with phrase «effect on temperatures»

By incorrectly applying these procedures Kaufmann et al. (2006) conclude that an increase in CO2 has a permanent effect on temperatures.

In my book, Nothing to Fear, I use the 2,000 year period between today and the time of Christ to demonstrate that there is no clear evidence that atmospheric CO2 levels have had an effect on temperatures.

When there is an atmosphere gravity also has an effect on temperatures in the atmosphere which is determined as the lapse rate.

Surely the temperature increase of the «passive» object will have an effect on the temperatures of both the passive object and the originally active object.

Although we build with concrete and steel leading to an UHI effect, mans nett effect on temperatures is that of a moderation.

««Environmental» Orthodoxy Can Be Deadly for Humans and Ecosystems Press Release on New Research Report Showing CO2 Has No Significant Effect on Temperatures»

I agree that the ECS is nowhere near as high as the IPCC claims, but believe that the emphasis needs to be on the larger issue of whether CO2 has a significant effect on temperatures in the real world.

But if changes in CO2 levels have no significant effect on temperatures, their proposed reductions in human - caused emissions will not either.

aa — Of course any such effect on temperatures due to this unforseen change in solar activity would not mean that AGW is not a threat, although it would delay the onset of that threat and give us more time to prepare so it would certainly be welcome.

If so, reducing CO2 emissions as the climate alarmists insist must be done would have no discernible effect on temperatures, which appears to be the case.

One of the few climate econometric studies written to date says that CO2 has no significant effect on temperatures.

One hypothesis why CO2 has no significant effect on temperatures is that much of the Earth, particularly in the tropical oceanic areas which receive much of the energy from the sun are regulated by emerging climate phenomena, not CO2, and these are what primarily determine temperatures in these areas.

CO2 emissions have only a tiny effect on temperatures, but strongly enhance plant growth.

Since those exogeneous factors can have a delayed effect on temperatures, they tested lag values from 0 to 24 months to see which best fit the data.

If today's releases of tens of billions of tons each year for 17 years have no effect on temperatures, surely you have some evidence somewhere that 1/1000 of that much CO2 released over 50 years had — what «more» effect on global temperatures?

This post will provide an overview of the adjustments done and their relative effect on temperatures.

Hence we can say that no CO2 effect on the temperatures has been observed since 1978 despite an increase of 263 % of the cumulative anthropic emissions (263 % = 402 Gt - C / 153 Gt - C).

Further «Hence we can say that no CO2 effect on the temperatures has been observed since 1978...» is a nonsense argument as it presupposes an alternative i.e. it does not falsify but relies on its own assumptions (uproven).

He has stated that additional CO2 should have a small effect on temperatures but I have not heard of him endorsing the illogical idea of «back radiation» (to which I believe you refer) as a warming process in the atmosphere.

The science part is about cause and effect on temperatures, and it is already large.

-LSB-...] The author poses what he calls the «major question»: why does CO2 have no significant effect on temperatures in the real world?

So if the H2O and CO2 in the atmosphere were removed, there'd be no particular effect on temperatures?

So there is no natural forciong that had a negative effect on temperatures in the late 20th century.

So Tom Quirk got the rainfall data and discovered that rainfall in Australia has a large effect on the temperatures recorded by the sensors five feet off the ground.

CO2 certainly has an effect on temperatures, but so do a lot of other things.

topal - Nobody rejects science when it's real science??? Please tell that to climate deniers who say that CO2 isn't being increased by anthropogenic activity, that it has no effect on temperatures, that it's all some unknown long term cycle, that it's cosmic rays, that all of the science is a malicous plot by the Illuminati, etc. etc. etc..

And there was NO effect on temperatures at lower altitudes over that time, even from this massive heating event where about 20 % of the entire atmosphere warmed.

What kind of logic is it that says that the effect on temperatures of a trace gas can't be that important because it's too small, when the efffect on temperature is logarithmic?

The study concludes that if you shut down all the world's power plants and factories, «there would not be much effect on temperatures.»

Dietrich Hoecht (180)-- I suspect that the East Asian aerosols are having an effect on temperatures and precipitation in North America.

Because of differences in vertical or horizontal distribution of forcings, some changes can have a more than proportional effect on temperatures.

Less variability is evident in monthly and annual temperature averages at U.S. climate stations for the warmer and more recent decades... more blanketing effect on temperatures.

Because of differences in vertical or horizontal distribution of forcings, some changes can have a more than proportional effect on temperatures.

Its method assumes that estimating the carbon drawdown gives a reasonable estimate of the overall effect on temperatures, and treats low and high - latitude forests equally.

«A randomized controlled trial of early kangaroo care for preterm infants: effects on temperature, weight, behavior, and acuity.»

In fact, it will take many thousands of years for the excess carbon dioxide to completely leave the atmosphere and be stored in the ocean, and the effect on temperature and sea level will last equally long.»

A city's water availability, through rainfall or irrigation, dictates its evaporative cooling effects on temperature, which reduces the severity of a heat wave.

The effects on temperature and precipitation are so small they can not be distinguished from natural variability, he says.

Every molecule of methane in the air has 25 times the effect on temperature rise compared to a molecule of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere by burning coal, oil or gas.

This means that a change of 40 - 50 ppmv of CO2 has no measurable effect on temperature... That doesn't mean that there is no effect at all, but it is smaller than implemented in current models.

The contribution from El Niño depended on how long the delay in its effects on temperature was determined to be.

The team also studied the effects of TiO on the exoplanet's climate, and found that it likely performs a similar function to Earth's ozone layer, albeit with the opposite effect on the temperature at altitude.

And as this knowledge is disseminated and better understood, eventually we'll have better models, and can achieve more widespread adoption of them - if the solar / cosmic ray / cloud mechanism is significant it could explain why temperatures in neither hemisphere are proceeding upwards lock - step with IPCC forecasts - and opening the door for a more accurate and widespread acknowledgement of CO2 effects on temperature and climate.

Every single molecule has an effect on the temperature inside a volume of mass.

Thanks for publishing this, there are folks who denigrated the work of scientists that claimed a solar - climate (temperature) link because the variability in solar energy output just wasn't enough to explain the temperature swings, and perhaps they now realize that there could be another mechanism - similar to a transistor where small changes in gate voltage can affect large changes in power transmission - whereby solar activity can create significant effects on temperature.

The problem is that the rate of emissions has no direct effect on temperature; it is the accumulated level in the atmosphere that creates a radiative imbalance that causes temperature to rise.

Is there any possibility that you have an address for the picture with the effect on temperature by El Nino, or a larger picture?

It might be interesting to speculate what the effect on the temperature record (any record) would be if Pinatubo had erupted in 2001, say, rather than 10 years earlier.

I would suggest comparing peak to peak average temperature captures during weighted El - Nino events (during the time they occur, if they can be compared equally this would be a telling graph), instead of considering year to year records as a means of reducing ENSO effects on the temperature record, ENSO being largely a heat exchange between air and sea causing great changes in cloud distribution world wide.

I would also be interested to hear more about the regression model used for the iRF efficacy estimates potentially creating the seemingly un-physical situation where a zero - forcing causes a non-zero effect on temperature.