Sentences with phrase «greenhouse effect see»

(For details of the greenhouse effect see Henderson - Sellers and Blong 1989.)

Not exact matches

Thoreau lived before anyone guessed at a global greenhouse effect, but not before he could see how we pollute and degrade our world.

So far we don't see any mitigating effect on greenhouse gasses.

They are running two sets of climate models, one with and one without the effects of humanity's greenhouse gas emissions, to see whether drought in east Africa becomes more likely in a warming world.

Professor David Schultz, one of the authors of the guest editorial, said: «One of the long - term effects of climate change is often predicted to be an increase in the intensity and frequency of many high - impact weather events, so reducing greenhouse gas emissions is often seen to be the response to the problem.

It may seem surprising to people, but you can look at something like Mars, which has a very thin atmosphere, and you can look at something like Venus which we tend to think of as sort of having this rather heavy, clouded atmosphere, which [is] hellishly warm because of runaway greenhouse effect, and on both of those planets you are seeing this phenomenon of the atmosphere leaking away, is actually what directly has led to those very different outcomes for those planets; the specifics of what happened as the atmosphere started to go in each case [made] all the difference.

Scientists know that the clouds can act as a sunshield, cooling parts of the globe and offsetting the global warming caused by the greenhouse effect (see «Not warming, but cooling», New Scientist, 9 July 1994).

Says Schneider, «In the fifteen years that I've been trying to convince people of the seriousness of the greenhouse effect, this is the first time I've seen a broad consensus: First, there is a consensus that action is not premature.

The point at which a planet's atmosphere would experience runaway greenhouse - gas effects like those seen on Venus — a point located just inside Earth's orbit in our solar system — forms the outer boundary.

«It will be much more interesting to see what the agency says when it actually develops a proposed rule to regulate greenhouse gas emissions — and therefore has to estimate the effects of that proposal.»

There are also numerous «fingerprints» which we would expect to see from an increased greenhouse effect (i.e. more warming at night, at higher latitudes, upper atmosphere cooling) that we have indeed observed (Figure 6).

There is evidence that greenhouse gas levels fell at the start of ice ages and rose during the retreat of the ice sheets, but it is difficult to establish cause and effect (see the notes above on the role of weathering).

It is generally believed that Venus and Earth formed with similar compositions, but that Venus» closer position to the Sun created a «runaway greenhouse» effect that caused it to lose all its water and become the hot, dry place we see today.

Hence, we would expect to see increasing differences in the spatial OLR structure compared to that of the heat emission from the surface, as the greenhouse effect is increased.

But you can look at past climate records, and see no sign, over many thousands of years, that solar variations have had effects of anything like the size needed to cancel out the expected effects of increased greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere over the next few decades.

If the greenhouse effect (that checks the exit of longwave radiation from Earth into space) or the amount of absorbed sunlight diminished, one would see a slowing in the heat uptake of the oceans.

So, if you have two identical glass greenhouses with thermally isolated mercury thermometers at equilibrium in the sunlight [One with Air at Press =P, and the 2nd w / CO2 at Press =P], and you close the blinds — you will see the thermometer in the CO2 greenhouse retain its temperature longer — not because of any «global warming» type effect, but simply because Air conducts heat to the walls of the greenhouse better than Air does.

Let's see, Fourier posited the greenhouse effect in 1824.

So, if you have two identical glass greenhouses with thermally isolated mercury thermometers at equilibrium in the sunlight [One with Air at Press =P, and the 2nd w / CO2 at Press =P], and you close the blinds — you will see the thermometer in the CO2 greenhouse retain its temperature longer — not because of any «global warming» type effect, but simply because Air conducts heat to the walls of the greenhouse better than CO2 does.

I don't want to see this thread get hung up on geoengineering but the device Hank describes offers some nice opportunities for thinking about infrared radiative transfer and the greenhouse effect, so let's all give it a go.

It is a sweeping and valuable cross-disciplinary description of ways in which climate and ocean dynamics, pushed by the planet's human - amplified greenhouse effect, could accelerate sea level rise far beyond the range seen as plausible in the last report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the most recent review of what leading experts on sea level think, this 2014 paper: «Expert assessment of sea - level rise by AD 2100 and AD 2300.»

Nobody is talking about «runaway» greenhouse effects (despite its frequent appearance in discussions)-- see here for more discussion.

I even saw mention of experiments where humidity determined the size at which dust clustered — and how this further affects what is called the «imaginary index of refraction» at different wavelengths — which no doubt plays an important role in determining the associated albedo and greenhouse effect.

Even if the legislation took effect and emissions were curtailed, the world would still see disruptive pressures building in places already facing severe drought and flood risks with or without the added kick from greenhouse warming.

We've seen empirical evidence that more CO2 causes an enhanced greenhouse effect.

I have seen some reports that say the greenhouse effect of CO2 goes down as its percentage of the atmosphere goes up.

In steady state, the planetary surface (as seen from space) shows no greenhouse effect: the all - sky surface up - ward radiation is equal to the available solar radiation.

He states: In steady state, the planetary surface (as seen from space) shows no greenhouse effect: the all - sky surface upward radiation is equal to the available solar radiation.

(This essay is supplementary to the core essay on The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect For the most important greenhouse gas, water vapor, see the essay on Simple Models ofGreenhouse Effect For the most important greenhouse gas, water vapor, see the essay on Simple Models ofgreenhouse gas, water vapor, see the essay on Simple Models of Climate.)

All this, while according to CO2 / AGW theory, The troposphere is what should see more warming due to «enhanced greenhouse effect» that occurs in the atmosphere.

Human activity — particularly the production of greenhouse gasses from fossil fuel emissions — is reshaping our planet, effecting rapid environmental change at a rate never seen before.

At least I don't see why I can't refer to people rejecting the greenhouse effect as denying it.

I see a distinct lack of integrity still as the basic premises of AGW's Greenhouse Effect are never allowed to be examined, mostly this is avoided by direct censorship and accompanied often by the deceit that they do not censor.

If you want to argue about the greenhouse effect, as a previous comment noted, see «the greenhouse effect has been falsified» and comment there.

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.»

A lot of poster, lurkers and others would be well served to visit the Science of Doom website and basic science textbooks utill they understand the greenhouse effect and see why the CO2 effect is somewhat logarithmic.

As Yohe sees it, a prudent risk - management strategy dictates significant cuts in greenhouse gases and immediate planning to adapt to rising sea levels and other effects of climate change.

What is more, I think that what we know about the greenhouse effect and what we have seen of the warming, ice melt, increased drought, increased inpulsive precipitation etc. is sufficient to establish a credible threat.

«We see, for the first time in the field, the amplification of the greenhouse effect because there's more CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb what the Earth emits in response to incoming solar radiation,» Daniel Feldman, a scientist in the Berkeley Lab and the study's lead author, said in a news release.

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.

In fact, as I have been pointing out, when the Water Cycle is put back into the AGWScienceFiction's Greenhouse Effect Energy Budget, then the «33 °C warming from -18 °C by greenhouse gases» is seen to be anGreenhouse Effect Energy Budget, then the «33 °C warming from -18 °C by greenhouse gases» is seen to be angreenhouse gases» is seen to be an illusion.

Here's a hint: begins with a G. 3) So after all that blabing about moon, mercury and venus it is still hard to see how the obscure part of Venus (which is not recieving any direct radiation from the Sun) is still over 400 Celcius when on a plante much closer to the same sun temperatures plunge to a a hundred negative... since the Greenhouse effect does not exist it must be MAGIC, pardon me, SCIENCE.

So, as this Infrared Region Energy is NOT seen presently surface incident in sufficient intensity nor has any alteration in such sufficient (within the last 50 years) either been noticed, and the present Bio-form of Humanity is now seen as being the «NOW» of a 7 Million year «long» progression (and precluding from existence a supposed «greenhouse effect») it is required «anonymous» that to «you» should be attempting to state HOW a «greenhouse effect» can be even rationally expected to EXIST, rather than continuing to attack individuals.

Liquid water in the ocean generates its own greenhouse effect because, you see, visible light from the sun easily penetrates to a depth of about 30 meters to warm the water.

In other words, what we are seeing is probably natural variability in this circulation against a warming background ocean state forced by the increased greenhouse effect.

Most of us acknowledge the existence of the internal variables, but an attempt to substitute them for known effects of greenhouse gases rather than to try to see how natural and anthropogenic factors balance out at different timescales will be seen as a dead end by individuals familiar with the abundant data in these areas.

After scanning the thousands of words on this thread I did not see any suggestion that there be some testing of the Hypothesis of the greenhouse gas effect!

-LSB-...] 2 — The mythical hotspot that would be the signature of the enhanced Greenhouse Effect due to increased levels of CO2 hasn't been found — see here and here.

Climate science, as based on its radiative greenhouse effect and its «heat pile up» postulate, is founded on an entirely irrational and non-existent premise, as we see the result of for example in the last post.

There are also numerous «fingerprints» which we would expect to see from an increased greenhouse effect (i.e. more warming at night, at higher latitudes, upper atmosphere cooling) that we have indeed observed (Figure 6).