Sentences with phrase «greenhouse effect produced»

What's in question is not the effect per se, which is certainly real, but the issue of sensitivity, i.e., how sensitive is the environment to the greenhouse effect produced by carbon from fossil fuel emissions?

Not exact matches

The idea being raising cattle produces so much methane (which is a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2) that the primary contribution to greenhouse gases is actually the cow itself, not shipping, so eating local beef vs generic feed lot beef has little effect on the environmental impact.

Climate models show that the additional particles caused by human activity produce a cooling effect which partially offsets the greenhouse effect.

Research at the Rodale Institute found that «organic farming helps combat global warming by capturing atmospheric carbon dioxide and incorporating it into the soil, whereas conventional farming exacerbates the greenhouse effect by producing a net release of carbon into the atmosphere.»

First, volcanic eruptions produce major quantities of carbon dioxide (CO2), a gas known to contribute to the greenhouse effect.

And then produce unlimited energy while eliminating the greenhouse effect.

It's not clear how much of a greenhouse effect that would produce, but it's a good bet that Earth would be a lot warmer — much as it would be, say, if there were no plants drawing carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.

The balance between methane - producing and - consuming processes has a major effect on the worldwide emission of this strong greenhouse gas into our atmosphere.

A new study in Canada has found that some hydroelectric reservoirs give off as much carbon dioxide and methane — the two most important causes of the man - made greenhouse effect — as coal - fired power stations producing a similar amount of electricity.

By 1988, the EPRI produced a report that concluded «there is a growing consensus in the community that the greenhouse gas effect is real,» the EPI said.

Though burning natural gas produces much less greenhouse gas emissions than burning coal, a new study indicates switching over coal - fired power plants to natural gas would have a negligible effect on the changing climate.

Located between the orbits of Mercury and Earth, Venus has a very thick atmosphere that is covered by a layer of clouds that produces a «greenhouse effect» on the planet.

That extra methane would have produced a greenhouse effect strong enough to heat the planet to a higher average temperature than it is today, although the Sun was around 20 percent dimmer at that time (Pavlov et al, 2000).

Now if this was the 1980s they might have had a point, but the fact that aerosols are an important climate forcing, have a net cooling effect on climate and, in part, arise from the same industrial activities that produce greenhouse gases, has been part of mainstream science for 30 years.

The oceans have absorbed approximately one third of human - produced CO2 emissions, dampening the effects of carbon dioxide - driven greenhouse warming.

Built surfaces increase energy demand and heat - island effects, adversely impact air quality, and produce greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming.

In an email, Dr. Billinge said he'd been exploring ways to show people how the heat buildup from an increasing greenhouse effect can take time to produce significant consequences.

Data from satellite observations «suggest that greenhouse models ignore negative feedback produced by clouds and by water vapor, that diminish the warming effects» of human carbon dioxide emissions.

If we're going to sequester anything, it seems to me that it should be CO2 from responsibly produced (low greenhouse emissions and high EROEI) biofuel, which would in effect allow us to remove CO2 from the atmosphere as we used it.

Not all of it was in the atmosphere, which is where carbon must be to produce the greenhouse effect.

The take - away is that if the Sun were now to stop all activity, as during the 16th - century Maunder Minimum, it would produce an effect on climate no greater than the next twenty years» worth of greenhouse gas emissions — some say, ten years.

That reduces the greenhouse effect of leaked methane for electricity production down to a GWPfm of 3.3 for equal kilowatt hours produced by coal.

In fact, that all things green love carbon - dioxide rich environments is the ONLY thing we KNOW about the effects of increase CO2 levels, other than the fact that higher and higher levels of CO2 produce increasingly lesser and lesser amounts of heating due to the «greenhouse effect».

It's reasonable to conclude that the greenhouse effect, while real, is not as important in producing climate change as the IPCC models calculate.

Anthropogenic global warming (AGW), a recent warming of the Earth's lower atmosphere as evidenced by the global mean temperature anomaly trend [11], is BELIEVED to be the result of an «enhanced greenhouse effect» mainly due to human - produced increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere [12] and changes in the use of land [13].

That's ironic that you mention that particular property of CO2, because there are scientist that theorize that, since CO2 is heavier, the GCM models are not correct — most CO2 produced at Earth's surface NEVER gets well mixed in fact most CO2 gets removed by rainfall, or gets absorbed by plants or the ocean long before it can cause any change in the so - called Greenhouse gas effect (but the GHG theory is not correct anyway) and the fact that they have severly underestimated CO2 upweelinng from the dee

On the other hand, heat released by the fire itself would likely be thousands of times less than heat produced by the greenhouse effect before the methane is oxidized into CO2.

The original theory that all of this was based on, the model that CO2 produced a greenhouse effect, was wrong from the start.

Enough of this stupidity, this is the AGWSF Greenhouse Effect energy budget, that «shortwave heats the Earth and no longwave infrared from the Sun plays any part in heating the Earth's land and water», either because it doesn't get through some unknown unexplained silly idea of an invisible barrier like the glass of a greenhouse, as per Arrhenius's getting Fourier wrong, or, as Pekka gives, that the Sun produces very little longwaveGreenhouse Effect energy budget, that «shortwave heats the Earth and no longwave infrared from the Sun plays any part in heating the Earth's land and water», either because it doesn't get through some unknown unexplained silly idea of an invisible barrier like the glass of a greenhouse, as per Arrhenius's getting Fourier wrong, or, as Pekka gives, that the Sun produces very little longwavegreenhouse, as per Arrhenius's getting Fourier wrong, or, as Pekka gives, that the Sun produces very little longwave infrared.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide build up produces a greenhouse effect that re-radiates some of the thermal wave lengths from the Earth's surface, which would otherwise escape into space, back towards the surface and the lower atmosphere leading to the increase in average surface temperatures.

«Before he died in 1991,» reports Findley, «Revelle produced a paper with [former NASA climate scientist Frederick] Singer suggesting that people should not be made to become alarmed over the greenhouse effect and global warming.»

The enhanced Greenhouse Effect we are now measuring is a human fingerprint because the source of it is the continued emission of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide, produced by industrialGreenhouse Effect we are now measuring is a human fingerprint because the source of it is the continued emission of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide, produced by industrialgreenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide, produced by industrial activity.

I say this and provide the image to add to the realisation that what Humanity is observing is NOT due to «greenhouse» (the effect is still not described in a valid manner and even the materials involved do not present «greenhouse behavior» let alone produce a «greenhouse effect») but is the end play to the same (now ~ 20000 to ~ 15000 year old) warming cycle.

You won't even notice they are missing in «descriptions» produced about this anymore than you notice that there is no Water Cycle in the AGWSF's Greenhouse Effect Illusion, there is no rain in their Carbon Cycle.

Long and Iles (1997) point to the US Department of Transportation's Climatic Impact Assessment Program (aimed not at the greenhouse effect but aircraft emissions) for producing, in 1975, «the first assessment to focus on social and economic measures,» (p. 6) and the 1989 US Environmental Protection Agency study as «the first extensive appearance of an economic analysis of impacts.»

Cow flatus alone far surpasses in greenhouse gas effect all that produced by all American cars, trucks, buses and locomotives.

The treaty required ratification by countries producing at least 55 percent of the world's greenhouse gases and support from Russia, with its large share of emissions, allowed the treaty to take effect.

I realize it's kind of late for making suggestions, but here goes anyway: Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner claim to have falsified the existence of an atmospheric greenhouse effect.It looks like you have addressed T&G's main arguments (eg, about the 2nd law), but I wonder if it might be appropriate to put in a brief description of what it means to «falsify» something in the scientific sense — ie, essentially what T&G must show (and failed to show) to make their case that there is no greenhouse effect: namely, 1) experimental evidence that shows the opposite of what an atmospheric greenhouse effect would necessarily produce and / or 2) evidence that the greenhouse effect would actually violate some physical law (eg, 2nd law of thermo) The pot on the stove example is obviously an attempt to show that you get a colder temp with the water than without, but I think it's worthwhile explicitly stating that «because T&G failed to demonstrate that the pot on the stove example is a valid analogy for the earth, they failed to falsify the atmospheric greenhouse effect» And you could also add a sentence stating that «because T&G failed to show that the greenhouse effect would require a violation of the 2nd law [because their arguments were incorrect], they also failed to falsify»

An increased greenhouse effect due to humidity, CO2, aerosols or clouds is expected to produce a relative increase of the minima with respect to the maxima and a decrease of the diurnal range.

I have literally had to write out differential calculus equations proving that the Earth can be modeled as a sphere, and with real - time power from the Sun, and that it makes things very hot, and that this produces wildly different results than a flat Earth requiring the invention of a greenhouse effect.

Around 1850, physicist John Tyndall discovered that carbon dioxide traps heat in our atmosphere, producing the greenhouse effect, which enables all of creation as we know it to live on Earth.

The second effect of the revenue rebate / dividend is that it immediately creates demand throughout the economy for low - greenhouse - gas options, ideas, and products, encouraging investors to put their money into enterprises that produce them.

The established science shows carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, that humans produce greenhouse gas emissions, and that humans have had some effect on Earth's climate.

Interpreting it as «human additions from now» is very obviously not a reasonable interpretation of the sentence, since then it would have to be shifting the natural greenhouse effect plus whatever shift we've alread produced.

Failure to produce proof that visible light from the Sun heats land and water intensely at the equator which is your AGWScienceFiction Greenhouse Effect claim proves you are utter ignoramouses about real world climate.

An extreme example of such an effect (commonly dubbed the greenhouse effect) is that produced by the dense atmosphere of the planet Venus, which results in surface temperatures of about 475 °C (887 °F).

Speaking at the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting in San Francisco, Dale says that while corn ethanol produces less greenhouse gases than gasoline, it can cause other detrimental environmental effects if not carefully managed.

Because unless you can show that visible light from the Sun directly heats land and water at the equator to the intensity it is actually heated in the real world which produces our huge wind system from the equator to the poles and all our real dramatic weather systems, then you have no wind or weather in your AGW Greenhouse Effect world.

The mechanism that produces this difference between the actual surface temperature and the effective temperature is due to the atmosphere and is known as the greenhouse effect.»

As for a supposed «greenhouse warming», there is still needing to be shown a validly produced THEORY (opinion is NOT such a validation) for the production of the supposed «greenhouse effect», made with actual attention to the materials involved and their ACTUAL and REAL properties.