Sentences with phrase «gases have a warming effect»

Although water vapour is a greenhouse gas it had no warming effect at the surface where the vapour simply acquired the same temperature as the surrounding air molecules.

«If they are right, no greenhouse gas has any warming effect on any planet.

To me all the witnesses and senators are obviously persons of consequence but I don't think your excerpt shows that anyone should think he takes issue with this statement — «No one questions that surface temperatures have increased overall since 1880, or that humans are adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, or that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have a warming effect on the planet.»

Not exact matches

But the reactive gases emitted by trees can also increase the amounts of ozone and methane, both greenhouse gases which have warming effects on the climate.

«It is widely understood that aerosols have a net cooling effect on climate, counteracting the warming caused by greenhouse gases.

Much of the damage will have been done by the year 2010, it says, and the rest by 2070, when the predicted effects of global warming from emissions of greenhouse gases will have done their worst.

Indeed, the reduction in the emission of precursors to polluting particles (sulphur dioxide) would diminish the concealing effects of Chinese aerosols, and would speed up warming, unless this effect were to be compensated elsewhere, for instance by significantly reducing long - life greenhouse gas emissions and «black carbon.»

Indeed, atmospheric chemists have estimated that the combined warming effect of these trace gases will soon equal or exceed the effect from carbon dioxide.

The coolants are typically greenhouse gases that, if they escape, have a global warming effect hundreds or thousands of times greater than carbon dioxide's.

Scientists knew about the warming effects of greenhouse gases, but proponents of global cooling argued that greenhouse warming would be more than offset by Earth's orbital changes.

As it does, it could release tons of additional methane gas, which has 20 times the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide, possibly increasing the rate of global warming.

7It is particularly ironic that Lomborg would offer such a ridiculously precise estimate of the cost of the impacts of climate change from carbon dioxide emissions, inasmuch as the entire thrust of his books chapter on «global warming» is that practically nothing about the effects of greenhouse gases is known with certainty.

The shorter - lived gas has a much stronger warming effect than CO2.

Frustrated by the ongoing diplomatic stalemate, a number of urban leaders have decided to take matters into their own hands, adopting solutions that already exist or inventing new ones for limiting greenhouse gas emissions and preparing for the effects of ongoing global warming.

Basically the reduction in glaciers begins before — well before in most cases — greenhouse gas concentrations could have had any warming effect.

A less active sun would probably have a small cooling effect on earth's temperature, if man - made greenhouse gases weren't having a much bigger warming influence.

Scientists have modelled the expected temperature drop over the 21st century due to waning solar activity — and they found that the change is likely to be dwarfed by the much bigger warming effect of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

As expected, Huber and Knutti find that greenhouse gases contributed to substantial warming since 1850, and aerosols had a significant cooling effect:

As your idea, that the earth would be colder, creates in effect the concept that greenhouse gases warm the planet I think this an important point to clear up.

«While major green house gas H2O substantially warms the Earth, minor green house gases such as CO2 have little effect....

This language would have been superfluous and without legal effect if, as Waxman assumes, EPA already had authority since 1970 to regulate carbon dioxide as an «air pollutant» or greenhouse gases in general based on their» global warming potential.»

(1) Of the other anthropogenic factors, some have a warming effect (other greenhouse gases such as methane) while others have a cooling effect (air pollution).

I know Lindzen has a theory that a change in tropical cloud cover will offset greenhouse - gas - caused warming, the unproven «iris effect».

# 102 Kevin: SA claims that «observed effects of the warming that has already occurred as a result of the greenhouse gases we have already emitted... are already causing massive and costly harm.»

Basically the reduction in glaciers begins before — well before in most cases — greenhouse gas concentrations could have had any warming effect.

Yet deleterious effects of warming are apparent (IPCC 2007), even though only about half of the warming due to gases now in the air has appeared, the remainder still «in the pipeline» due to the inertia of the climate system (Hansen et al 2011).

Re: # 129 The following site states why greenhouse gases have a much greater effect than the Sun and natural variability in explaining recent global warming.

Research by an international team of scientists recently published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters says that the cooling effect of aerosols is so large that it has masked as much as half of the warming effect from greenhouse gases.

There are another couple of links between iv) therefore England was warmer back then, and v) therefore increasing greenhouse gases have no radiative effect.

I wonder if that briefing will extend to the effect that ramping up tar sands oil production in Alberta using Alaskan natural gas will have on global warming?

They concluded that therefore with the tropical troposphere warming no more quickly than the surface, the warming trend had to be due to something other than the accumulation of greenhouse gases and enhanced greenhouse effect.

As detailed in section V of this notice, it is widely recognized that greenhouse gases (GHGs) have a climatic warming effect by trapping heat in the atmosphere that would otherwise escape to space.

Global climate models have successfully predicted the rise in temperature as greenhouse gases increased, the cooling of the stratosphere as the troposphere warmed, polar amplification due the ice - albedo effect and other effects, greater increase in nighttime than in daytime temperatures, and the magnitude and duration of the cooling from the eruption of Mount Pinatubo.

Where you then have a talik, from this combination of geological and radiative forces, and then there is plenty of free gas underneath that can migrate out easily through pathways once there are such tears, and then you add on top of all that that it is a seismically active zone, one can easily see how global warming could greatly amplify the effects of an earthquake at that fault zone.

(I think that an anomalously warm ocean surface heated from below would lead to more evaporation, and the additional water vapor would give a positive greenhouse effect that would partially offset the effect of a drop in greenhouse gas concentrations.)

However, albedo modification would only temporarily mask the warming effect of greenhouse gases and would not address atmospheric concentrations of CO2 or related impacts such as ocean acidification.

``... point out that cooling trends are exactly as predicted by increasing greenhouse gas trends,... It is interesting to note that significant solar forcing would have exactly the opposite effect (it would cause warming)» (of the upper atmosphere)

«Since increased concentrations of CO2 can lead to global warming, some people have proposed increasing the emission of SO2 to stabilize the temperature because of the cooling effect of this gas.

The actual observed effects of the warming that has already occurred, as a result of the greenhouse gases we have already emitted, are self - evidently already «dangerous» since they are already causing massive and costly harm.

Multi-signal detection and attribution analyses, which quantify the contributions of different natural and anthropogenic forcings to observed changes, show that greenhouse gas forcing alone during the past half century would likely have resulted in greater than the observed warming if there had not been an offsetting cooling effect from aerosol and other forcings.

For instance, the warming that began in the early 20th century (1925 - 1944) is consistent with natural variability of the climate system (including a generalized lack of significant volcanic activity, which has a cooling effect), solar forcing, and initial forcing from greenhouse gases.

4 - While major green house gas H2O substantially warms the Earth, minor green house gases such as CO2 have little effect....

The IPCC concluded that «the effects [of greenhouse gases], together with those of other anthropogenic drivers, have been detected throughout the climate system and are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.»

On the converse, side particulates (smoke) have also risen and have to some extent offset the warming effect from greenhouse gases.

You'll note an acceleration of those temperatures in the late 1970s as greenhouse gas emissions from energy production increased worldwide and clean air laws reduced emissions of pollutants that had a cooling effect on the climate, and thus were masking some of the global warming signal.

I have explained the trick creating the illusion of the «Greenhouse Effect of 33 °C warming by greenhouse gases» which anyone with even half a brain could follow, as well as giving some other examples of the fake fisics created to hide this sleight of hand, and all the response I get is silence or verbal diarrhoea as distraction.

Radiatively warmed (whether directly or indirectly through collisions) molecules are placed higher in the atmospheric column than can be explained just from their individual gas constants and once at that height have an enhanced cooling effect equal to their enhanced warming effect with a zero net effect on surface temperature.

I'd like to stick to facts: * CO2 levels are rising because we emit CO2 (so we can do something about it) * CO2 is a greenhouse gas * CO2 thus contributes to warming of the surface * Other effects compensate or amplify these changes * Those other effects haven't reversed / stopped the warming trend yet

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.»

Some AGW proponents have tried to minimise the significance of all this by suggesting that the implication is that Greenhouse Gases are even more important because the troposphere warmed despite the now revealed cooling effect of the more active sun.