Sentences with phrase «gases against the surface»

Not exact matches

When the team looked at the overall balance between the radiation upward from the surface of the ice sheet and the radiation both upward and downward from the upper levels of the atmosphere across all infrared wavelengths over the course of a year, they found that in central Antarctica the surface and lower atmosphere, against expectation, actually lose more energy to space if the air contains greenhouse gases, the researchers report online and in a forthcoming Geophysical Research Letters.

But there is a problem: The cold nitrogen gas thrusters that were supposed to press the lander against the surface appear not to be working.

But from my vantage, all I could see was a handful of small boats dragging booms across the water's surface, dwarfed against a massive backdrop of oily water; also visible were one ship burning gases rising from the blowout and two platforms where relief wells were being drilled.

John Carter August 8, 2014 at 12:58 am chooses to state his position on the greenhouse effect in the following 134 word sentence: «But given the [1] basics of the greenhouse effect, the fact that with just a very small percentage of greenhouse gas molecules in the air this effect keeps the earth about 55 - 60 degrees warmer than it would otherwise be, and the fact that through easily recognizable if [2] inadvertent growing patterns we have at this point probably at least [3] doubled the total collective amount in heat absorption and re-radiation capacity of long lived atmospheric greenhouse gases (nearly doubling total that of the [4] leading one, carbon dioxide, in the modern era), to [5] levels not collectively seen on earth in several million years — levels that well predated the present ice age and extensive earth surface ice conditions — it goes [6] against basic physics and basic geologic science to not be «predisposed» to the idea that this would ultimately impact climate.»

In climate - change discussions, two Princeton professors go against the grain By Mark F. Bernstein The issue of climate change, or global warming, has become a rallying cry: The Earthâ $ ™ s surface temperatures are Ârising due to increased levels of carbon dioxide and other Âgreenhouse gases in the atmosphere, much of it produced by human activity.

In tube 2 with the cling film at the base, gravity keeps the coldest gas against the cooling surface, minimising conductive flux.

«Climate science» as it is used by warmists implies adherence to a set of beliefs: (1) Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations will warm the Earth's surface and atmosphere; (2) Human production of CO2 is producing significant increases in CO2 concentration; (3) The rate of rise of temperature in the 20th and 21st centuries is unprecedented compared to the rates of change of temperature in the previous two millennia and this can only be due to rising greenhouse gas concentrations; (4) The climate of the 19th century was ideal and may be taken as a standard to compare against any current climate; (5) global climate models, while still not perfect, are good enough to indicate that continued use of fossil fuels at projected rates in the 21st century will cause the CO2 concentration to rise to a high level by 2100 (possibly 700 to 900 ppm); (6) The global average temperature under this condition will rise more than 3 °C from the late 19th century ideal; (7) The negative impact on humanity of such a rise will be enormous; (8) The only alternative to such a disaster is to immediately and sharply reduce CO2 emissions (reducing emissions in 2050 by 80 % compared to today's rate) and continue further reductions after 2050; (9) Even with such draconian CO2 reductions, the CO2 concentration is likely to reach at least 450 to 500 ppm by 2100 resulting in significant damage to humanity; (10) Such reductions in CO2 emissions are technically feasible and economically affordable while providing adequate energy to a growing world population that is increasingly industrializing.

Adding insult to injury now at this point (the sadist in me I guess) the ballyhooed insulating effect of greenhouse gases now serves to insulate the surface against the LWIR eminating from the newly condensed vapors and makes the path of least resistance radiative transfer out to the cold dark cosmic void.

Again correct, but absolutely no evidence against the ability of downwelling radiation from the Atmosphere to the Surface to cause the Surface to be warmer than it would be absent the «greenhouse gases».

Examples include a dispute between joint venturers over the operation of a gold mine, a dispute charging an oil and gas lessee with failure to prevent drainage from an oil and gas lease, litigation over water rights, a dispute over title to sand and gravel and a claim for trespass by the surface owner against the operator of a sand and gravel mine.