Sentences with phrase «even atmospheric effects»

Although Heller's sketches include perspectival convergences toward the horizon, diminution of forms, and even atmospheric effects of blurring and softening with distance, the drama of near and far does not rely on realist description.

Not exact matches

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.

As a young scientist in the 1920s, Otto Heinrich Warburg described an elevated rate of glycolysis occurring in cancer cells, even in the presence of atmospheric oxygen (the Warburg effect) that earned him a Nobel...

As we become more aware of our inner life, we notice how events, interactions, and even the atmospheric pressure effect us.

Even so, the track offers an enjoyable presentation that keeps all the voices cleanly separated and properly prioritized, while atmospheric effects create impressive soundstages and music is strong and powerful where needed.

The film makes terrific use of the soundfield, surrounding the viewer with atmospheric effects beyond even what someone expecting a spectacle fest to deliver.

Making the connection even more explicit, the book's cover features Monet's atmospheric painting, Houses of Parliament: Effect of Sunlight in the Fog.

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.

Note that any net change in biomass (whether trees, or cows or even humans) does affect atmospheric CO2, but the direct impact of human population growth is tiny even though our indirect effects have been huge.

And eventually as the far more massive ocean cooled it would be able to hold more dissolved CO2, so atmospheric CO2 would be drawn down, thus reducing the greenhouse effect further (even more energy out).

Re # 104 — «Well, weather prediction is much less certain than climate prediction, since even small «butterflies beating their wings in South America» can effect change in short - term atmospheric processes.»

Well, weather prediction is much less certain than climate prediction, since even small «butterflies beating their wings in South America» can effect change in short - term atmospheric processes.

So even doubling the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide would only result in a very small theoretical rise in temperature, since the largest amount of the greenhouse effect caused by atmospheric CO2 has already occurred with the first 20 ppmv concentration.

You don't even need a surface to have an atmospheric greenhouse effect (on a planet like Jupiter for example, any point along a T (p) curve within a convecting layer will be higher than it would be if its atmosphere were totally transparent to thermal radiation).

(Becaused of delayed ocean and atmospheric effects 2016 is set to break the upcoming 2015 temperature record, even if the El Niño would disappear in spring — which is an unknown, beyond the reach of climate models.)

You know, for a little while there I even thought that Bob T himself (who is undoubtedly an interesting fellow) might even be sharp enough to appreciate that the coupling of increased atmospheric CO2 and increased seawater N nutrient levels to produce enhanced cyanobacterial productivity in near surface layers of the oceans would also produce the weather - moderating effects listed above (particularly in the areas where tropical storms are «brewed»).

And as to his claim that there may be «places around the world where global warming will lead to less crop success and yield, even when taking into account the carbon dioxide fertilization effect,» he appears to be equally ignorant that rising levels of atmospheric CO2 tend to raise the temperature of optimum plant photosynthesis beyond the predicted temperature values associated with global warming, effectively nullifying this worn out claim (Idso & Idso, 2011).

While the global warmmongers continue to wring their hands over rising temperatures hurting yields (the Corn Belt growing season has indeed warmed slightly since 1960), improved varieties and the «global greening» benefits of more atmospheric CO2 have more than offset any negative weather effects — if those even exist.

As such there is little point in SCIENCE to be made by quoting any reference to «greenhouse effects» (IPCC included) If you notice the plot of atmospheric absorbance within the link (*): - http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display/113579/index.php#comments -: you will see that the supposed «greenhouse radiation» is not even seen being surface incident.

With 2.2 trillion tons of CO2 already in the atmosphere (causing the severe earth - warming CO2 greenhouse effect), even if we stopped CO2 production completely, it would, still, take about 20 + years to bring atmospheric CO2 concentration into a normal range.

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.

Climate models are like weather models for the atmosphere and land, except they have to additionally predict the ocean currents, sea - ice changes, include seasonal vegetation effects, possibly even predict vegetation changes, include aerosols and possibly atmospheric chemistry, so they are not like weather models after all, except for the atmospheric dynamics, land surface, and cloud / precipitation component.

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.

Besides, there is also a possibility that the Gulf Stream could even increase in temperature over years to come — adding a cumulative effect to continued atmospheric warming.

Because soil is such a major player in the carbon cycle, even a small change in the amount of carbon it releases can have a big effect on atmospheric carbon concentrations.

Even if the myths are true, and CO2 does have some small warming effect, that warmth will only bring us closer to the Holocene average, opening farmland in higher latitude as the continued growth of human population utilises that enhanced atmospheric CO2 to feed itself.

The second factor is the insulating effect of the atmosphere of which well over 90 % results from atmospheric water in the form of clouds and water vapour with the remaining 10 % due primarily from CO2 and ozone with just a slightly detectable effect from methane and a trivial effect from all the other gases named in tyhe Kyoto Accord that is so small it can't even be detected on measurements of the Earth's radiative spectrum.

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).

Meanwhile, the logarithmic effect of CO2 is excellent «concession» to make in the rhetorical sense, since it concedes the obvious state of our knowledge about the effects of CO2, while at the same time providing us with the solid argument that even if we double atmospheric CO2 levels from 400ppm to 800 ppm over the next 100 years the largest amount of warming possible — assuming all else remains the same and Gaia has no homeostasis negative feedback systems which tend to moderate any runaway trends — is 1.2 c.

A paper published back in 1998 and co-authored by Richard Tol and titled: A BAYESIAN STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF THE ENHANCED GREENHOUSE EFFECT dealt with climate sensitivity, even though the main purpose of the paper was to demonstrate: «This paper demonstrates that there is a robust statistical relationship between the records of the global mean surface air temperature and the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide over the period 1870 — 1991.»

Notwithstanding the rest of the AGW science and what effect the carbon has, even a sceptic like me would like to see an abatement in the growth of atmospheric carbon.

Even if our CO2 emissions were to increase the temperature the effect would be indiscernible because the amount of change would be related to total atmospheric mass and not related to the proportionate increase in CO2

However, the point of this posting is to convince those WUWT readers, who, like Einstein, need a physical analogy before they will accept any mathematical abstraction, that the atmospheric «greenhouse» effect is indeed real, even though estimates of climate sensitivity to doubling of CO2 are most likely way over-estimated by the official climate Team.

We do not know sufficient about the carbon cycle to determine what — if any — effect on atmospheric CO2 concentration would result from altering athropogenic CO2 emissions: even the IPCC admits that.

The IPCC summary is deeply flawed as a scientific document and as I have explained in other recent articles it appears impossible for increased levels of atmospheric CO2 at the puny levels caused by mankind to affect the characteristics of the atmosphere enough to significantly enhance the greenhouse effect and even if it could do so then any such effect would be quickly neutralised by the primary solar / oceanic driver and the oceans acting in conjunction with evaporation, condensation and atmospheric convection (which includes clouds and rain).

Even if our emissions were the cause of increased atmospheric CO2 my Model still works because it reduces the effect of our CO2 to an infinitesinal circulation change compared to the much larger circulation changes induced by the variable sun and ocean cycles.

Even seemingly small changes in global temperature have far - reaching effects on sea level, atmospheric circulation, and weather patterns around the globe.

Even more intolerable, these punitive EPA rules will have virtually no effect on atmospheric CO2 levels, because China, India, Germany and other countries will continue to burn coal and other fossil fuels.

I look at the work in atmospheric physics and chemistry journals and even some work at NASA that show global warming is more a natural phenomenon and that the greenhouse effect, though very real, is perhaps being taken a step too far with some of the AGW claims made.

Similarly, a La Nina cooling effect (the cold tap) can moderate, offset, or even more than offset the warming effect of an increase in atmospheric CO2 (the hot tap) on global (the tub) temperature.

It is probable that even a 1 % variation in atmospheric water vapor equals or exceeds all the effects of human sourced CO2.

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