Sentences with phrase «net effect of the greenhouse gases»

If the temperature below is warmer than the local temperature, IR radiation that is re-radiated is less than is absorbed, the net effect of the greenhouse gases is to warm that layer.

«the net effect of greenhouse gases is to cool the upper atmosphere, and warm the lower atmosphere»

Not exact matches

Now if this was the 1980s they might have had a point, but the fact that aerosols are an important climate forcing, have a net cooling effect on climate and, in part, arise from the same industrial activities that produce greenhouse gases, has been part of mainstream science for 30 years.

However, the net effect in terms of forcing is only about 0.27 W / m ^ 2 — much less than greenhouse gas forcing.

Algae absorb the main greenhouse gas carbon dioxide as they grow, so the net effect on global warming of the fuel is considered to be neutral.

You created the requirement of a net transfer from the atmosphere to the ocean, whereas I explained with two examples that the greenhouse effect can put heat in the oceans due to a change in greenhouse gases despite a flatlining in surface temperatures of both ocean and air AND an uninterrupted net transfer from ocean to air.

He points out that building new eco-cities does not result in a net fall in greenhouse gas emissions — it is at best neutral, though more likely to result in a rise in emissions because of the effects of making the building materials used in the construction.

And what exactly would be changed, if the public were educated about aerosols and greenhouse gases and temperature histories and the fact that at least 50 % of the 0.5 - 0.9 C change compared to 200 years ago is with 90 to 99 % likelihood due to the net effect of anthropogenic factors?

Well it's even more complex than that because the net warming from humans doesn't just involve CO2, but other greenhouse gases and it factors in the cooling effect of aerosols being dwarfed by the CO2 forcing.

Schematic diagram of human - made climate forcings by greenhouse gases, aerosols, and their net effect.

[note] In this context it intrigues me that those who advocate for stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) tend to ignore the possibility that the possible termination effect would increase net risk from greenhouse gas emissions, and the deployment of SAI should therefore (in risk adjustment terms) justify accelerated mitigation rather than reduced mitigation.

On the vital question of how to approach climate change, the most influential economist is William Nordhaus whose explicit position is that we should decide to reduce greenhouse gas emissions only if cost - benefit analysis or an optimisation model concludes that the net benefits to humans are positive, where the relevant effects are essentially impacts on economic output (Nordhaus and Yang, 1996).

When you compare this with the actual surface temperature of ~ 288 K and the temperature in absence of the greenhouse effect but no change in albedo of ~ 255 K, what we can say is the follows: The greenhouse effect due to all the greenhouse gases (water vapor, clouds, and the long - lived GHGs like CO2 and CH4) raises the temperature of the Earth by an amount of ~ 33 K (which is 288K — 255K); the albedo due to cloud reduces the temperature by ~ 17 K (which is 272 K — 255 K); the net effect of both the GHGs and the cloud albedo is ~ 16 K (which is 288K — 272K).

Other characteristics of the Earth will affect the net position such as the distribution of the land and sea surfaces but given the predominance of ocean surfaces and the fact that most energy comes in at the equator which is mostly oceanic then it seems most likely that the net global effect of more greenhouse gases is actually a miniscule cooling rather than a miniscule warming.

As noted earlier, the IPCC's latest report indicates that the current radiative forcing of non-carbon dioxide greenhouse gases and aerosols effectively cancel each other, so that the net effect of all radiative forcing components is currently roughly equal to the effect of carbon dioxide alone.

Most of the warming in climate models is not from CO2 directly but from feedback effects, and the evidence for strong positive climate feedback on temperature is very weak (to the point of non-existence) as compared to the evidence of greenhouse gas warming (yes, individual effects like ice cover melting are undeniably positive feedback effects, the question is as to the net impact of all such effects).

This is because the net warming it reports includes the cooling effects of aerosols which partly masks the warming caused by greenhouse gases.

The net climate - forcing effect of ABCs is much more poorly known than that of long - lived trace greenhouse gases, as explained here.

So these two articles are suggesting that a grand solar minimum could have a net cooling effect in the ballpark of 1 to 6 °C, depending on how human greenhouse gas emissions change over the next century.

Moreover, when you then convert the three gases to a comparable unit based on their potential to warm the planet over a 100 - year time frame, the planet's biosphere works out to be a net source of greenhouse gases, causing a warming comparable to the effect of between 3.8 and 5.4 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions per year.