Sentences with phrase «more ghgs»

As the climate gets warmer, more ice and permafrost melt, releasing even more GHGs and raising the sea level.

Michael Mann echoing Keven Trenberth's position that all weather now has a climate change component since it is occurring in an altered atmosphere (one with more GHGs, heat and water vapour amongst many other factors).

Or put another way, if there is so much water vapor around (3 % vs only 390ppm for CO2), and more GHGs means more warming, why does the GHE stop at 33C instead of continuing until all the water vapor absorbs a photon OR asked another way, who says that all the water vapor caused by the added CO2 will absorb a photon to cause more GHE warming?

Does this experiment not say that Arrhenius as adopted by RealClimate & IPCC, that «More GHGs means more warming» is totally absolutely WRONG half the time.

Third we have the John Dodds alternate Wobble Theory of Climate Change» at www, scribd.com or at http://earth-climate.com which shows that the Arrhenius claim that more Greenhouse Gases means more warming (ie the Greenhouse Effect) does not work every night when Mother Natures nightly experiment shows that more GHGs actually result in cooling contrary to the Arrhenius / IPCC theory.

Doesn't the Arrhenius conclusion make more sense if you conclude that adding more energy photons in the greenhouse effect, not adding more GHGs, causes more warming?

Could it be that Arrhenius was wrong in his conclusion that more GHGs means more warming?

And to follow on with the forcing feedback question, if more GHGs causes more warming why doesn't it get warmer when the the humidity increaes when it rains?

Today we're just skipping that first natural warming step by injecting GHGs directly into the atmosphere, which is already inducing warming, which will result in yet more GHGs being released naturally, etc., until equilibrium — and a warmer climate — is reached.

- could be in place.The second is that the subsequent global warming gas methane being belched from permafrost defrosting and burped up from the warming Arctic sea bottom are not included in official IPCC predictions, and researchers are discovering there's more GHGs stored in permafrost than we thought.

The paleo record is not at all ambiguous: as temperature rose in response to natural increases in insolation more GHGs were released into the atmosphere (mainly CO2, CH4, and H2O), and then those GHGs induced yet more warming, which released yet more GHGs, etc., until equilibrium — and a warmer climate — was reached.

Doesn't this mean thst the IPCC Mantra that more GHGs means more warming (AR4, WG1, Ch 1 P116) is wrong.

Doesn't it make more sense that the nightly reduction in the number of available photons (both incoming and converted to IR) results in fewer GHE reactions and hence it cools AND by implication the Arrhenius / IPCC conclusion that more GHGs means more warming is just not justified?

More GHGs have their main effect in the troposphere, where more IR is absorbed in the upper fraction of a mm of the sea surface.

CDR (or «negative» emission) technologies afford cities the opportunity to turn the current GHG emission paradigm on its head by enabling cities to go «negative» and remove more GHGs from the atmosphere than they emit.

I think this is a critical issue for the entire AGW construct because if the extra DLR from more GHGs can not add to ocean heat content then only the effects on the air need be considered and that would be insignificant in the face of oceanic control of surface air temperatures.

As I will now explain, that is important because the combination of expansion and increased height enables the atmosphere to accommodate more GHGs without altering system equilibrium temperature.

Now, recall the problem we had with AGW theory in that we had nothing to counter the reduction in density caused by more GHGs and we needed something to counter it in order to comply with the Ideal Gas Law.

If a higher T from more GHGs leads to a higher V then the reduction of density results in lower T so there is a logical impasse.

The influence of more GHGs in the stratosphere is reverse: more cooling (as far as that is clear, indeed it looks more as stepwise changes than a smooth degradation) and more spread over the latitudes.

The United States is not only responsible for the current crisis because, as President Obama noted, it is the second highest emitter of ghg in the world behind China, it has historically emitted much more ghgs into the atmosphere than any other country including China, it is currently near the top of all nations in per capita ghg emissions, and the US has been responsible more than any other developed nation for the failure of the international community to adopt meaningful ghg emissions reduction targets from the beginning of international climate negotiations in 1990 until the Obama administration.

Applying Chris O'Neilll's argument, we should all refrain from exercise because that generates more GHGs than sitting still.

According to Dogz «Applying Chris Oâ $ ™ Neilllâ $ ™ s argument, we should all refrain from exercise because that generates more GHGs than sitting still»

It's not really to do with photons emitted by the surface at first, it is just more photons emitted by the atmosphere with more GHGs, making a larger downward IR flux changing the energy balance at the surface until it warms up enough to emit more and balance it again.

Add some more GHGs each day, OHC goes up each day and weakling natural variability becomes helpless.

So, on those grounds, more GHGs could not affect equilibrium temperature because they provoke an equal and opposite system response to any effect they might have on the transfer of energy through the planetary system.

If the net effect of more GHGs is actually system cooling then the reverse scenario would apply, still with no change in equilibrium temperature.

Any increase in energy in the air from more GHGs on our water planet is offset by a faster water cycle moving energy more quickly through the system.

In its latest report, the IPCC said: «Net negative emissions can be achieved when more GHGs are sequestered than are released into the atmosphere (e.g., by using bio-energy in combination with carbon dioxide capture and storage).

basic physics tells us that more GHGs will lead to a warmer surface, all other things being equal.

Those actions will cut the adding of more GHGs slowing the worsening of global warming, but will not reverse the present effects occurring.

Since evidence of GW has continued to pour in and become stronger & stronger (and since I'm saving heaps of money by abating it), I don't think any contrarian or scientist can convince me to start emitting more GHGs, even if it becomes 100 % certain AGW is not happening.

When people understand the GHE from this greenhouse or car analogy and from such simple images, then it becomes very easy to understand that adding more GHGs to the atmosphere will increase the global warming.

These are all feedback loops; more GHGs, more warming, more ice loss, more permafrost melt, more GHGs.

Forest depletion ultimately contributes more GHG emissions than all the cars and trucks in use worldwide, says Werner Kurz, a forest ecologist with Natural Resources Canada, who was not involved with the study.

If you are really interested in this (and not just interested in grasping at straws in a vain hope that adding more GHG's to the Earth's atmosphere will have no effect) you should pick up a text book on introductory atmospheric physics or atmospheric radiative transfer.

The implication is that when you dump more GHG in the atmosphere but don't give the ocean time to warm up, then the atmosphere needs to warm up until the sum of the energy lost to space and the energy lost to the ocean surface comes back into balance.

[Response: Even were that true, there are a lot more GHG emissions than just transport.

At Bali, the Indian government has stated it's desires to join the fight with a hard pledge to never emit more ghg per person than the folks in the industrialized nations do.

According to the National Academy of Sciences, it results in five times more GHG emissions than pork or chicken, while requiring 28 times more land and 11 times more irrigation water.

Adding more GHG can not warm the atmosphere while it is cooling it.

There may be real opportunities for more GHG offset projects, particularly in developing countries.

Antartica is melting quickly, Greenland too, the Arctic sea ice is vanishing rapidly and the permafrost is melting, forest fires raging and peaks lands burning all relaeasing more GHG than expected in all the policy makers models.

Canadian oil sands crudes are on average somewhat more GHG emission - intensive than the crudes they would displace in U.S. refineries, as Well - to - Wheel GHG emissions are, on average, 14 % -20 % higher for Canadian oil sands crude than for the weighted average of transportation fuels sold or distributed in the United States;

3) In the examination of the model for the GHE above, the initial radiation balance, plus the adiabatic - lapse rate, is what has set the structure of the temperature profile; and then the addition of more GHG to the temperature field causes a radiative imbalance that changes the temperature profile until the imbalance goes away.

2) As you say, when more GHG is added, the altitude of the photosphere rises (I don't see that the tropopause would rise), and its temperature is reduced: so less power must be radiated away.

But after the addition, there is a lot more GHG above it, so the downward flux is now greater than it was before.

If almost all of the heat transfer from surface to upper atmosphere is by convection, then you can change anything you want about the radiation system, more GHG, less, it won't matter.

More GHG equals more absorption and re-emitting of long wave bands, and that equals an increase in temperatures.»

(August 24, 2011) Californian stars and Canadian environmentalists protest Alberta heavy oil while making no effort to stop the California regulators from going out of their way to over-allocate excess free GHG quota to subsidize more GHG - intensive California heavy oil.