Sentences with phrase «effects of co2»

The cost / benefit analysis of actions taken to limit CO2 levels depends on the discount rate used and allowances made, if any, for the positive future positive economic effects of CO2 production on agriculture and of fossil fuel based energy production.

Our Upper Bound for TCS, considering only the radiative forcing effects of CO2, is TCS < 1.2 C.

It is plain that the opposing effects of CO2 and its consequent warming on sea - level must be very nearly equal, so that the net effect is near zero.

(6) The GCM models built by the CIC have consistently greatly overestimated the effects of CO2 on global average temperatures over a period of over 25 years.

We are now experiencing the effects of our CO2 emissions of 20 years ago.

We also know how to calculate the radiative effects of CO2 — check the IPCC Report.

«This vast assemblage of plant life... [tends] to counteract the heating effects of CO2's thermal radiative forcing.»

However, I'm not sure we actually have time to wait for that if even a fraction of the harmful effects of CO2 rises come to pass.

I can vaguely remember the start of this CAGW scare, but was pretty much convinced that saturation effects of CO2 limited it, and I considered «tipping points» as fanciful.

While outdoor air pollution kills, it also — inadvertently — counteracts some of the warming effects of CO2.

[37] This hypothesis suggests a negative feedback which would counter the effects of CO2 warming by lowering the climate sensitivity.

The missing variable fallacy of neglecting a factor entirely, implicitly treating it as 0 % effect, minimizing mention to quickly skip on (except when the target audience unavoidably already has heard of it), is common when something is so extraordinarily dangerous to the CAGW movement as to be he - who - must - not - be-named to them, a distinction which belongs to the magnitude of beneficial effects of CO2 (several tens of percent rise in plant growth rates under a more extreme scenario of CO2 doubling, plus as huge a rise in water usage efficiency, if the plants aren't underfertilized meanwhile) and to the dominating influence of cosmic rays on climate as in the link in my name.

Especially as I completely agree with the physics behind the direct effects of CO2, and the 1.2 C we should see from doubling CO2 from 280 ppm to 560 ppm.

I am aware of the skeptical view on most issues, including «beneficial effects of CO2».

Compared to CMIP5, HAPPI slightly underestimates the CO2 concentration that corresponds to the +1.5 °C World but overestimates the CO2 concentration for the +2.0 °C World, which means that HAPPI scenarios may also lead to an overestimate in the beneficial effects of CO2 on crops in the +2.0 °C World.

More disconcerting, when models added the effects of CO2 and aerosols to natural factors (the red line labeled ALL), discrepancies between models and 1940s observations worsened.

We do not know for sure that there are going to be catastrophic effects of CO2.

While the science on climate change was limited compared to what we know today, by 1971 electric utilities knew enough to include research into the «effects of CO2» in the industry's long - term research and development goals for through the year 2000.

There remain disagreements about quantitation, but there is little evidence to support claims that the effects of CO2 are insubstantial, either in contributing to recent trends or in modifying past trends.

Sure, in fifty to a thousand millennia, will overwhelm the effects of CO2 emission in this millennium, if there is some strong single - direction of change in the Sun.

In the case of the warming signal, you have the clearly delineated effects of CO2 and that is not «poor science» at all.

Centuries are made of decades Joshua, so unless you expect the effects of CO2 to manifest suddenly at the end of some time period, then a signal that is not infinitesimal should be apparent at the decadal level — and I seem to recall one particular decade where there was quite a bit of handwaving.

The «perspective from Down Under» appears to be one of conflating the effects of CO2 from the science of attribution.

Public polling shows that the man on the street (some unfortunately large percentage) has vaguely heard that «some climate scientists have cooked the books and fudged their results» [this includes exaggerating risks and effects of CO2]..

For instance, the long - term warming effects of CO2 and other greenhouse gases are largely buffered by the ocean, which absorbs more than 90 percent of the excess heat caused by human emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

This leads Prof Curry to say the IPCC's models are «incomplete», because they do not adequately account for natural factors such as long - term ocean temperature cycles and a decline in solar output, which have suppressed the warming effects of CO2.

Even more significant is the ridiculous reliance placed on modeling, where unproven input notions about the likely effects of CO2 are circularly spat out by the computer as multi-decade warming projections.

And the warming effects of CO2 are, according to Arrhenius, a sharply diminishing return, anyway.

But don't forget the distinction between the cooling effects of volcanic SO2 into the stratosphere versus the warming effects of CO2 into the troposphere.

Hmm, just where did Arrhenius speak of the damaging effects of CO2?

I expect that as studies approach a model without layers that the effects of CO2 will decrease.

To investigate the effects of CO2 emissions on ocean pH, we forced the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory ocean general - circulation model (Fig. 1a) with the pressure of atmospheric CO2 (pCO2) observed from 1975 to 2000, and with CO2 emissions from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's IS92a scenario1 for 2000 — 2100.

All that said, we can draw the conclusion that the theoretical effects of CO2 do in fact exist, they have been measured over a 10 cm path length, and from this we can extrapolate that a still higher sensitivity would be arrived at once the entire atmospheric scale and the change in water vapour concentration from bottom to top of that scale is taken into account.

Is the effects of Co2 global, or when taking into account the SH ice trends, is climate change warming restricted to the NH?

By you people being obsessed by the phony GLOBAL warmings; the beneficial effects of CO2 are a taboo..

In other words the effects of the CO2 rise should be clearly and quickly obvious to all and should be happening now.

If you examine the energy flow diagrams in the Trenberth and Fasullo and other publications, it is pretty clear that the effects of CO2 changes on those energy flows are not well known.

The Arctic's vulnerability is exacerbated by increasing flows of freshwater from rivers and melting land ice, as freshwater is less effective at chemically neutralising the acidifying effects of CO2.

So the ability to detect changes in the global temperature is the yard stick to measure the global effects of CO2 emissions.

We know why CO2 is increasing now, and the direct radiative effects of CO2 on climate have been known for more than 100 years.

First of all, they do * nothing * about the other effects of CO2 (ocean acidification, physiological impacts on plants around the world).

And locally, and perhaps regionally, this can be larger than the effects of CO2.

And it doesn't help when I'm expected to accept that industrial aerosols balanced the effects of CO2 from 1940 - 1979, yet can be safely ignored when considering the years 1910 - 1940.

Maybe there's a better way to help explain the effects of CO2 to the lay person though — particularly how it compares with solar forcings.

The real world atmosphere is a large body of air, has circulation patterns, and is not held in a container, so the effects of CO2 have different effects and behaviours than a simple container and very low concentrations can have significant effects.

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

Everyone involved is already in agreement on the long term effects of CO2.

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.

Though, as I also said, there's probably some interesting work to be done with short - term prediction when the effects of CO2 are comparable to both the decline in sunlight and natural variability.

The effects of CO2 are a feedback.