Sentences with phrase «n't absorb the greenhouse gas»

The sinks won't absorb the greenhouse gas forever, though.

Not exact matches

Some of the nitrogen the crops do not absorb is converted into nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas 310 times more powerful than carbon dioxide.

Forests, lest we forget, aren't just essential homes to many species; they also absorb greenhouse gases.

They are not like the oxygen molecules or the nitrogen molecules in the atmosphere, which do not absorb infrared, but the greenhouse gases do.

The reason using existing cropland for biofuels tends not to show up as yielding large reductions in greenhouse gas emissions is simply because those croplands are already absorbing large quantities of carbon.

This report isn't the first to call for further investigation into the potential of geoengineering strategies, which encompass techniques to cool the Earth or absorb existing greenhouse gases using technology or ecosystem - based methods.

So the report notes that the current «pause» in new global average temperature records since 1998 — a year that saw the second strongest El Nino on record and shattered warming records — does not reflect the long - term trend and may be explained by the oceans absorbing the majority of the extra heat trapped by greenhouse gases as well as the cooling contributions of volcanic eruptions.

At some of these overlaps, the atmosphere already absorbs 100 % of radiation, meaning that adding more greenhouse gases can not increase absorption at these specific frequencies.

Kirchhoff's law doesn't apply to gases, because the greenhouse molecules can absorb more energy that they emit.

It's not totally about how much infrared from the surface that is blocked (currently about 90 % of surface emissions is absorbed by greenhouse gases), its also about the height within the atmosphere from which radiation escapes.

I suspect the problem here is that you are thinking of greenhouse gases as blocking thermal radiation such that once the radiation is absorbed there isn't any reemission.

ABM: The whole point about the greenhouse gases in a planetary atmosphere is that they absorb the infrared radiation emitted by the surface, and so Kirchhoff's law does not apply.

To repeat what I wrote in # 130, which you appear not to have absorbed: «All gases are greenhouse; they don't need to be able to absorb IR to heat — conduction & convection work perfectly well.»

All gases are greenhouse; they don't need to be able to absorb IR to heat — conduction & convection work perfectly well.

Words only have meaning in context and while it may be true that water vapor is a greenhouse gas in the sense that more of it in the atmosphere will absorb more infrared radiation and warm the climate, it is not a greenhouse gas in the sense that it is a gas we need to seriously worry about adding directly to the atmosphere.

A new paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, concluding that the buildup of human - generated greenhouse gases could leave a profound millenniums - long imprint on climate and sea levels, focuses on a characteristic of global warming that the public, and many policymakers, have not absorbed — at least according to John Sterman at M.I.T.

We can change the concentration of greenhouse gases and we can change the amount of sunlight that is reflected to space (not absorbed at the surface).

The argument for geoengineering goes like this: the world is getting inexorably warmer; governments show no sign of drastically reducing greenhouse gas emissions, so why not control the planetary thermostat by finding a way to filter, block, absorb or reflect some of the sunlight hitting the Earth?

I explained to you on your own website that, whether you call them greenhouse gases or not, CO2, CH4, N20 behave differently from N2 and O2: GHGs absorb outgoing long wave radiation and N2 and O2 don't.

To compensate the temperature of the Earth system has to increase, increasing the rate of emission in regions of the thermal IR where greenhouse gases do not absorb.

Carbon dioxide, methane, etc are called greenhouse gases precisely because they can absorb infra - red (IR) heat energy, while the other 99 + % of the atmosphere can not.

This will clear up any confusion about non-greenhouse gases not being able to emit and absorb thermal radiation i.e. the mistaken notion that an atmosphere without greenhouse gases would not be able to cool itself by thermal radiation.

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

When there are no greenhouse gases the atmosphere can not absorb incoming radiation or emit outgoing radiation.

Greenhouse gases do absorb more energy than radiatively inert gases but they do not get any warmer.

*** I prefer to consider greenhouse gases and effectively lowering the surface albedo as, with a solid surface that doesn't evaporate in response to DWLIR the GHG causes the ground to absorb more energy than it otherwise would.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a greenhouse gas, simply meaning that it absorbs and redirects infrared radiation but not shorter - wavelength radiation.

OE: In the course of the 21st century it is not the fossil fuels that will become rare, it is the ability of the atmosphere to absorb additional greenhouse gases.

The dwindling forest cover becomes not only less efficient in absorbing and removing this «greenhouse gas,» but the fires also add new, huge volumes of it.

Is this supposed to «prove» that visible light can not be absorbed by the earth, and hence can not be implicated in the radiation emitted by the earth and absorbed by greenhouse gasses?

This is a fortuitous thing, for if there was not this alteration of the energy flow, with the oceans absorbing more heat being the excellent heat sink they are, we'd have a much faster warming troposphere as greenhouse gases increase.

And that to use it as an example or reason why we are thus NOT affecting the earth through a multi million year change in long lived atmospheric greenhouse gases — which absorb and re radiate thermal radiation, slowly increasing the energy balance of the earth — is irrational.

But logging can transform a swath of forest from a carbon «sink» into a carbon source, not only destroying CO2 - absorbing trees but emitting tons of new greenhouse gases in the process.

«Greenhouse gases», not being transparent to infrared radiation, absorb it as well as emitting it.

Here's Merriam Webster's version: Main Entry: carbon dioxide Function: noun: a heavy colorless gas CO 2 that does not support combustion, dissolves in water to form carbonic acid, is formed especially in animal respiration and in the decay or combustion of animal and vegetable matter, is absorbed from the air by plants in photosynthesis, and is used in the carbonation of beverages I know you'll all correct me if i'm wrong in stating if CO2 has no scientific facts supporting global warming based upon a factor of greenhouse gases (as opposed to solar radiation in another post, which would be defined by variations in earth, space, or similar factors), then where does science determine that CO2 «disolves in water to form carbonic acid» and is «absorbed from the air by plants in photosythesis»?

Maybe you don't believe that website, so here is better one: From: http://www.temis.nl/products/o3tropo.html «Ozone in the upper troposphere acts as a greenhouse gas by absorbing long - wave terrestrial radiation.»

Not heresy, as nobody would argue that «greenhouse» gases don't absorb and emit IR and radiate to space.

That greenhouse gases being absent does not effect the one third of solar radiation being absorbed by clouds Or the surface albedo can jump from 12 % to 30 % Or the greenhouse gases being absent but still have clouds to reflect radiation Or the IR (not now absorbed) by the clouds will not obey Kirchoff's Law on reaching the planet surface And so on.

In bands where greenhouse gases (or clouds) absorb a lot, there is less, not more, infrared radiation escaping into space.

The destruction of natural ecosystems — whether rain forest in the tropics or grasslands in South America — not only releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere when they are burned and plowed, but also deprives the planet of natural sponges to absorb carbon emissions.

The excess gases in the atmosphere are believed to enhance the greenhouse effect by not only preventing infrared light from escaping into space, but also by absorbing more outgoing energy, leading to warmer surface temperatures.

Not so with Miskolczi theory that can handle several greenhouse gases simultaneously absorbing in the IR.

That implies that an excited electron in a greenhouse gas molecule in the atmosphere can not radiate toward the ground unless it can «find» another electron on the surface in a ground state which is capable of absorbing the photon which is to be radiated.

It makes clear that we can not burn fossil fuels and pump excessive amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere without coming up against the earth's ability to absorb such waste.

If the earth warms, then there is no balance, so the atmosphere can't radiate back to it, so the extra heat radiated from the earth and absorbed by the greenhouse gases must go elsewhere (e.g. convection) until such time as the atmosphere warms up to the new temperature.

It does absorb infrared radiation and trap heat in the atmosphere, which is the definition of a greenhouse gas, but carbon monoxide is very reactive and soluble, so its molecules do not remain in the atmosphere for any significant time.

The difference between them is that Miskolczi theory (MGT) can handle several greenhouse gases simultaneously absorbing in the IR while Arrhenius can not.

The burning of tropical forests not only ends their ability to absorb carbon, it also produces an immediate flow of carbon back to the atmosphere, making it one of the leading sources of greenhouse gas emissions.

While a greenhouse warms the air by allowing in and retaining heat and not allowing in cooling air, greenhouse gases warm the planet by absorbing the Sun's heat and then reemitting it into the atmosphere.

Gases in Earth's atmosphere [edit] Greenhouse gases [edit] Greenhouse gases are those that can absorb and emit infrared radiation, [1] but not radiation in or near the visible specGases in Earth's atmosphere [edit] Greenhouse gases [edit] Greenhouse gases are those that can absorb and emit infrared radiation, [1] but not radiation in or near the visible specgases [edit] Greenhouse gases are those that can absorb and emit infrared radiation, [1] but not radiation in or near the visible specgases are those that can absorb and emit infrared radiation, [1] but not radiation in or near the visible spectrum.