Sentences with phrase «effects of greenhouse gases seems»

The claim that climate models systematically overestimate the warming effects of greenhouse gases seems to be unfounded.

The radiative effects of greenhouse gases seem fairly obvious and have been since I read the first IPCC report all those years ago.

Not exact matches

Generally speaking, the U.S. and international press seemed to think the report, which finds the pipeline would have minimal effects on greenhouse gas emissions, bodes well for TransCanada's long - delayed project to connect the oilsands to Gulf of Mexico refineries.

So basically earth would somewhat similar to Earth without a greenhouse effect, and strange as it may seem, it would a world without greenhouse effect as the would be a shortage of the most dominant greenhouse gas the earth has: water vapor.

This is how the climate models seem to represent it — they multiply the effect of CO2, and they do this with a degree of certainty regarding CO2 NOT matched by a similar degree of certainty regarding water vapor (the most abundant greenhouse gas of all).

I have no doubt that it is a greenhouse gas but, if the atmospheric content is a function of the integral of global temperature and unrelated to anthropogenic emissions, It seems these emissions are too insignificant in relation to natural CO2 variations to have any measurable effect.

There seems to be a popular perception that the greenhouse effect and man - made global warming theories can not be tested because «we only have one Earth», and so, unless we use computer models, we can not test what the Earth would be like if it had a different history of infrared - active gas concentrations.

Because this issue pertains to the effects of greenhouse gases on the climate, it seems that a scholars definition would be better that a religious one.

This essentially is a moderating effect, and does not seem to be dependent on re-radiation of IR trapping greenhouse gases in anyway, except to the extent that it slows the rate of heat loss at night (which may very well be a real — albiet a small — effect).

Other characteristics of the Earth will affect the net position such as the distribution of the land and sea surfaces but given the predominance of ocean surfaces and the fact that most energy comes in at the equator which is mostly oceanic then it seems most likely that the net global effect of more greenhouse gases is actually a miniscule cooling rather than a miniscule warming.

I may be reading things incorrectly, but it would seem to me that greenhouse gases must be in the atmosphere, as opposed to buried under ice and snow, to be part of the greenhouse effect.

It seems to me that the effect of greenhouse gases is strongest when * temperatures * are highest — during daytime — so the greenhouse warming would be strongest during the day.

Reminds me a little of the RC article titled something like «CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas and greenhouse effects are not the only CO2 problem» Here it would be «extraterrestrial rock impacts are not the only cause for a sudden cooling, and not all et impacts necessarily lead to a cooling» It seems that you'd have to have multiple, definite, rock layer evidence associated with definite, repeated cooling events for their hypothesis / conclusion to have much weight behind it.

Although previous research had seemed to indicate that aerosols could create a general cooling effect in the atmosphere — thus helping mitigate the effect of global warming — a new study has revealed that they may in fact warm it just as much as greenhouse gases.