Sentences with phrase «increasing co2»

Increasing CO2 does increase the greenhouse effect, but there are other factors which determine climate, including solar irradiance, volcanism, albedo, orbital variations, continental drift, mountain building, variations in sea currents, changes in greenhouse gases, even cometary impacts.

A similar occurrence of decreasing global temperatures with rapidly increasing CO2 emissions took place during the 33 years from 1942 to 1975 (the 70's global cooling scare) so the stated correlation of increased CO2 emissions with global warming never actually existed.

So, to recap, the U.S. — which has one of the best CO2 - emissions - reduction track records in the world — is being held up as the bad guy, while the countries busily increasing their CO2 emissions, including number one culprit China (now responsible for around 30 per cent of the world's total emissions) get a free pass.

It is such that any potential warming by increasing CO2 is negated by changes in water vapor.

My theory is that increasing CO2 will raise the temperature within the boundary layer.

One of the most certain impacts of increasing CO2 concentrations is warming temperature.

Issues relating to the magnitude of the fertilization effect and the partitioning between land and ocean uptake were identifi ed in individual models, but it is only under increasing CO2 in the future (see Chapter 10) that the differences become large.

Even if increasing CO2 from 180 - 220 to 240 - 280ppmv was on balance, good for us is moot since nobody will have the power to force concentrations back to the pre-agricultural levels or even the levels of the 19th century any time soon.

At a time when the northern hemisphere was cooling and the global mean temperature still below the values of the early 1940s, they confidently predicted a rise in temperature due to increasing CO2 emissions.

In other words increasing CO2 has three to four times the effect one gets by just calculating the changes due to its radiative effects.

A total rise of 0.7 C over the last century and a standstill since 1985 despite steadily increasing CO2 emissions can not be described as «catastrophic».

Or, trying to «correct» for the different lifetimes of the gases using Global Warming Potentials, over a 100 - year time horizon (which still way under - represents the lifetime of the CO2), you get that the methane would be equivalent to increasing CO2 to about 500 ppm, lower than 750 because the CO2 forcing lasts longer than the methane, which the GWP calculation tries in its own myopic way to account for.

Also, the author points out the disconnect between monotonically increasing CO2 between 1940 - 1970 with the simultaneous temperature declines in Fig. 2.4.

If ocean acidification requires, as you say, [dumping chemicals there] why would that be necessary since increasing CO2 atmospheric concentrations are not an AGW problem rather a consequence of increased ocean acidification.

Instead he was pointing to the trajectory of increasing CO2 emissions that continue to add to atmospheric concentrations.

One therefore needs to be sure that there is a real solid connection between increasing CO2 and Global Warming.

The vertical fingerprint of the impact of increasing CO2 (warming troposphere, cooling stratosphere) was calculated in 1967 by Manabe and Wetherald, decades before it was observed.

Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere may be causing the oceans to move from a more alkali Ph to a less alkali position.

(it increases with increasing CO2, isn't it?)

So even a few percentage points increase in storage of carbon in by restoring grasslands and forests and / or reduction of fires and deforestation would cancel out a significant portion of the increasing CO2 levels.

Compared to the past decades, the pattern (more emissions in South Asia) and the relative forcings are completely different, with much less relative influence of aerosols than today (due to faster increasing CO2 levels).

However, the point is we still have not addressed the difference between the 255 Deg, K and the global 283/4 Deg K bottom of the atmospheric column and the role a an increasing CO2 level plays.

The relatively small range of historical climate response suggests that there is another mechanism, for example a compensating non-GHG forcing, present in the historical simulations that counteracts the relatively large range in sensitivity obtained from idealized experiments forced only by increasing CO2.

Final note to Hank — yes, increasing CO2 increases the lapse rate, which holds more heat closer to the surface.

Granted, this is the «correlation versus causation» issue, but, IMHO, the simplest explanation would be that increasing CO2 concentrations are causing the increase in global temperatures!

The AGW conjecture — that increasing CO2 levels cause global warming — can be shown easily to be not true with simple logic.

* increasing CO2 concentration of the opaque (lower) layer of the troposphere absorbs more LWR, which decreases the heating of the upper layers and eventually produces a cooling.

We can see that anthopogenic causes are increasing CO2 but is there any research about what may cause the opposite?

The latter is what we should see on Earth, with its spectral shift — a warmer stratosphere at all levels with increasing CO2, combined with a reduced temperature at which the stratosphere radiates to space.

The fact is that you can keep increasing CO2 forever and it will not saturate in this sense (see Venus for an example).

It is (virtually) impossible to prove that a single (or a small number) freak weather event (s) is (are) caused by increasing CO2, but when a large number are observed, it may be possible to spot a pattern of change — yet it is difficult to attribute such a change to a cause unless the mechanisms are understood.

Despite saying it does, the only evidence this article provides is a correlation between measured GW and increasing CO2 levels, dressed up though it may be.

I therefore must stick with the conclusion that a solar warmer is needed for increasing CO2 to cool the stratosphere.

How much has increasing CO2 increased convection in the last 100 years?

If the influence of aerosols is less than expected, then the influence of CO2 must be decreased too, or it is impossible to explain the cooling period 1945 - 1975 with increasing CO2 levels.

* increasing CO2 concentration in the optically thin (upper) layer in the stratosphere increases the LWR emissivity and hence increases the cooling.

[Response: Yes, but this is not the same as deciding whether increasing CO2 will cause an increase or decrease of temperature.

Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere means therefore an increasing sink.

I also don't see that man has been increasing CO2 is subject to debate either.

> increasing CO2 holds more heat to the surface.

Because latent heat release in the course of precipitation must be balanced in the global mean by infrared radiative cooling of the troposphere (over time scales at which the atmosphere is approximately in equilibrium), it is sometimes argued that radiative constraints limit the rate at which precipitation can increase in response to increasing CO2.

I would assume those oscillations are not readily modeled, but the literature suggests several modelers believe the positive phases are controlled by CO2 and become more persistently positive with increasing CO2.

But when this first happens in the center of the CO2 band, there is still the band widenning effect; the CO2 effect is not saturated at the «edges» of the band, which shift outward over the spectrum with increasing CO2.

Scenario A had exponentially increasing CO2, Scenario B had a more modest Business - as - usual assumption, and Scenario C had no further increases in CO2 after the year 2000.

Absorption of solar radiation by CO2 is minimal, and increasing CO2 should not change it in a way to mediate cooling.

We know that there were two other factors at play, increasing CO2 and higher insolation, both of which also change the energy balance positively and therefore increase the equilibrium response to the changes in the environment.

However, it has been known since the earliest general circulation simulations by Manabe that as the Earth warms in response to increasing CO2, the precipitation increases much more slowly than Clausius - Clapeyron would suggest — typically only 2 - 3 % per degree of warming.

To make sure I've understood your 2006 article correctly, Dr. Hansen's 10 years to a tipping point is an educated (very educated) estimate of how long we have to stop increasing CO2 ppm (to prevent it going over the dangerous 400ppm level) as opposed to the result of calculations from a computer model.

Schimel, D., Melillo, J., Tian, H., McGuire, A. D., Kicklighter, D., Kittel, T., Rosenbloom, N., Running, S., Thornton, P., Ojima, D., Parton, W., Kelly, R., Sykes, M., Neilson, R. and Rizzo, B., Contribution of Increasing CO2 and Climate to Carbon Storage by Ecosystems in the United States, Science 287: 2004 - 2006, 2000

There are very clear fingerprints of change that are only associated with changes via increasing CO2 etc. — gavin]