Sentences with phrase «greenhouse warming of their surfaces»

Some may even still have magma oceans today, whether because they are so close to their stars that silicate vaporizes at the equilibrium temperatures or through massive greenhouse warming of their surfaces.

Not exact matches

Most scientists and climatologists agree that weird weather is at least in part the result of global warming — a steady increase in the average temperature of the surface of the Earth thought to be caused by increased concentrations of greenhouse gasses produced by human activity.

SEAS researchers suggest that early Mars may have been warmed intermittently by a powerful greenhouse effect, possibly explaining water on the planet's surface billions of years ago.

So this effect could either be the result of natural variability in Earth's climate, or yet another effect of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases like water vapor trapping more heat and thus warming sea - surface temperatures.

All the greenhouse gases absorb infrared, and they also release the infrared, so these act as blockades to the infrared, leaving the atmosphere and going off into space; and the Earth warms up to send off even more infrared from the surface in order to reach its state, sort of a steady state with regard to space.

Charlie's research told him that during El Niño weather cycles, the surface seawaters in the Great Barrier Reef lagoon, already heated to unusually high levels by greenhouse gas — induced warming, were being pulsed from a mass of ocean water known as the Western Pacific Warm Pool onto the reef's delicate living corals.

But the planets surface will be warmer, because a larger fraction of that infrared will be blocked by the blanket of greenhouse gases.

Like carbon dioxide, methane is one of the greenhouse gases, which trap heat near Earth's surface and contribute to global warming.

The greenhouse effect is the process in which the emission of infrared radiation by the atmosphere warms a planet's surface.

And those feedbacks ultimately determine the extent to which that initial warming will be amplified, but they don't even change the fact that you elevate greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere and you'll get a warming of the surface.

Understanding how layers of air insulate the surface of glaciers, for example, is vital to making accurate estimates of how fast they will melt — and sea levels will rise — as the Earth warms under its blanket of greenhouse gases.

The effects of wind changes, which were found to potentially increase temperatures in the Southern Ocean between 660 feet and 2,300 feet below the surface by 2 °C, or nearly 3.6 °F, are over and above the ocean warming that's being caused by the heat - trapping effects of greenhouse gases.

With lots of warm surface water releasing heat into the atmosphere, in addition to ever - rising levels of greenhouse gases, 2015 is likely to surpass the warmest year on record, and 2016 will be similarly hot.

SEAS research suggests that early Mars may have been warmed intermittently by a powerful greenhouse effect, possibly explaining the presence of water on the planet's surface.

It bears stating again that the expected amplification has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect — it is just a function of the surface warming.

The observed fact that temperatures increases slower over the oceans than over land demonstrates that the large heat capacity of the ocean tries to hold back the warming of the air over the ocean and produces a delay at the surface but nevertheless the atmosphere responds quit rapidly to increasing greenhouse gases.

By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified

When greenhouse gases increase, more longwave radiation is directed back at the ocean surface, which warms the cool - skin layer, lowers the thermal gradient, and consequently reduces the rate of heat loss.

Climate models generally predict that temperatures should increase in the upper air as well as at the surface if increased concentrations of greenhouse gases are causing the warming.»

Re Q # 3: The current answer ``... emission from greenhouse gases... adds to the warming at the surface» is a true fact but is not a valid answer to the question of how the greenhouse effect alters surface temperatures (which underlies the judge's query).

Since 1950, the authors find that greenhouse gases contributed 166 % (120 - 215 %) of the observed surface warming (0.85 °C of 0.51 °C estimated surface warming).

Cooling sea - surface temperatures over the tropical Pacific Ocean — part of a natural warm and cold cycle — may explain why global average temperatures have stabilized in recent years, even as greenhouse gas emissions have been warming the planet.

In contrast to historical droughts, future drying is not linked to any particular pattern of change in sea surface temperature but seems to be the result of an overall surface warming driven by rising greenhouse gases.

As a result, the surface of the Earth receives almost twice as much energy from the atmosphere than it receives from the Sun and the surface is about 30 ° C warmer than it would be without the presence of greenhouse gases.

«The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, doesn't show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming,» wrote lead author David Douglas, a climate expert from the University of Rochester, in New York state.

However, they can provide both positive and negative forcing» and Ray # 252 «we understand extremely well the way greenhouse gasses [sic] like CO2 warm the planet» So here we go — Assumptions from considerations of physics: Unless CO2 could enlist water vapour to amplify its forcing it would simply be an unremarkable trace gas in the atmosphere, but — CO2 + water (vapour) = + ve feedback implying warming CO2 + water (liquid) = - ve feedback implying cooling Facts: Clouds cover half the surface of the planet.

Question 3: Third sentence: «Greenhouse gases re-radiate the absorbed energy in all directions, and thus part of this radiation goes back to the surface leads to warming.»

By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified

Geoengineering proposals fall into at least three broad categories: 1) managing atmospheric greenhouse gases (e.g., ocean fertilization and atmospheric carbon capture and sequestration), 2) cooling the Earth by reflecting sunlight (e.g., putting reflective particles into the atmosphere, putting mirrors in space to reflect the sun's energy, increasing surface reflectivity and altering the amount or characteristics of clouds), and 3) moderating specific impacts of global warming (e.g., efforts to limit sea level rise by increasing land storage of water, protecting ice sheets or artificially enhancing mountain glaciers).

Item 8 could be confusing in having so many messages: «It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas... The best estimate of the human - induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period....

Climate models generally predict that temperatures should increase in the upper air as well as at the surface if increased concentrations of greenhouse gases are causing the warming.»

Adding CO2 does not (at least not before the climate response, which is generally stratospheric cooling and surface and tropospheric warming for increasing greenhouse gases) decrease the radiation to space in the central portion of the band because at those wavelengths, CO2 is so opaque that much or most radiation to space is coming from the stratosphere, and adding CO2 increases the heights from which radiation is able to reach space, and the stratospheric temperatures generally increase with increasing height.

Global average surface temperatures are not expected to change significantly although temperatures at higher latitudes may be expected to decrease to a modest extent because of a reduction in the efficiency of meridional heat transport (offsetting the additional warming anticipated for this environment caused by the build - up of greenhouse gases).

2) The committed warming: effectively the greenhouse gas increase from pre-industrial to now has committed the planet to a surface warming of 2.4 °C (using IPCCs central value for climate sensitivity), and only about 0.6 °C of this has been realized thus far.

The point being that w / out ongoing decimation from soot, wind, ozone (surface ozone pollution that warms from UV), the AO and greenhouse gases, the ice would have been more likely to recover from the impact of such an event.

Re Q # 3: The current answer ``... emission from greenhouse gases... adds to the warming at the surface» is a true fact but is not a valid answer to the question of how the greenhouse effect alters surface temperatures (which underlies the judge's query).

Whereas this phenomena has been principally related to a natural extreme event, its impacts may very well forebode the impact that a projected warming of surface temperatures could have by the end of the 21st Century due to greenhouse gas increases.

Independent computer models (about 23 or so world - wide, I believe), generally show a warming of the surface and even more in the tropsophere in the tropics due to increased water vapor (warm the air up and it has more available water vapor (a greenhouse gas)..

And the more of these «greenhouse gases» or «GHGs» in the atmosphere, the warmer Earth's surface gets.

With climate and Greenhouse Gas thoeries of Global warming, it appears to me that of most interest is the interface between the Earth's atmosphere and space and the flow of radiated heat from the sun, what's reflected back from Earth's surface and the consequences of any change in that balance.

@ 48 If your speculation is correct, I assume that another consequence would be that, if / when concentrations of greenhouse gases start to drop, corresponding reductions in surface ocean / land temperatures would take place at a much slower rate than would otherwise be the case: the surplus heat stored in the deep ocean will gradually make its way to the ocean surface, and continue to warm the atmosphere for decades, if not longer.

1) Greenhouse gasses absorb infrared radiation in the atmosphere and re-emit much of it back toward the surface, thus warming the planet (less heat escapes; Fourier, 1824).

As we know from laboratory experiments, mathematical calculations, and observations of Venus and other planets in the Solar System, greenhouse gases change things in two ways: they trap heat from the sun in the lower atmosphere, thus making the surface of the planet warmer; and they keep heat from rising, thus making the upper atmosphere colder.

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.

(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.)

Re 9 wili — I know of a paper suggesting, as I recall, that enhanced «backradiation» (downward radiation reaching the surface emitted by the air / clouds) contributed more to Arctic amplification specifically in the cold part of the year (just to be clear, backradiation should generally increase with any warming (aside from greenhouse feedbacks) and more so with a warming due to an increase in the greenhouse effect (including feedbacks like water vapor and, if positive, clouds, though regional changes in water vapor and clouds can go against the global trend); otherwise it was always my understanding that the albedo feedback was key (while sea ice decreases so far have been more a summer phenomenon (when it would be warmer to begin with), the heat capacity of the sea prevents much temperature response, but there is a greater build up of heat from the albedo feedback, and this is released in the cold part of the year when ice forms later or would have formed or would have been thicker; the seasonal effect of reduced winter snow cover decreasing at those latitudes which still recieve sunlight in the winter would not be so delayed).

We can divide the atmosphere into a lower part (LP), which includes the surface and is the source of IR, and an upper part (UP), which we are asked to assume will cool when CO2 increases, in conjunction with the expected warming of LP from the enhanced greenhouse effect.

And we know that adding the same greenhouse agents back will (absent hysteresis among equilibria — which should be avoidable if we limit ourselves to considering only the Planck response) warm the climate back up to a surface temperature of 288 K.

On the contrary, AGWs infer that on top of convection of latent heat and conduction from the surface, excited greenhouse gases warm the other 99 + % through molecular collision, converting their vibrational energy into kinetic energy, thus warming the 99 + %.

Taking account of their historic responsibility, as well as the need to secure climate justice for the world's poorest and most vulnerable communities, developed countries must commit to legally binding and ambitious emission reduction targets consistent with limiting global average surface warming to well below 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels and long - term stabilization of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations at well below below 350 p.p.m., and that to achieve this the agreement at COP15 U.N.F.C.C.C. should include a goal of peaking global emissions by 2015 with a sharp decline thereafter towards a global reduction of 85 percent by 2050,