Sentences with phrase «of increased co2»

2.2 Mention of increased CO2 leading to higher temperatures without including anthropogenic or reference to human influence / activity relegates to implicit endorsement.

moshe, can you promise us that the benefits of increased CO2 will be around for thousands of years?

Here's a factsheet from the Ontario (Canada) Ministry of Agriculture regarding the use of increased CO2 levels in greenhouses to increase productivity.

The fact is that the first precise calculations about the impact of increased CO2 concentrations on the earth's surface temperature were made by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, more than five decades before the NSF was founded.

Furthermore, while the climate effects of increased CO2 are (and probably to some extent always will be) uncertain, the CO2 accumulation itself is capable of quite exact and continual measurement.

I think the briefest answer to the question would be yes, some positive impacts of increased CO2 on plant productivity are expected, but some negative impacts on vegetation are also expected, and many uncertainties remain concerning vegetation responses to increased CO2 and climate change.

Then it ought to be no problem for you to find quotes from reputable scientific organizations representing biologists that say that the consequences of increased CO2 (including climate change) are likely to be more positive than negative and that we should put as much CO2 into the air as we can?

Adding substantially to the benefits of milder northern winters (extended growing seasons, cattle farms and apple orchards in Greenland, and things of that nature) is the effect of increased CO2 on primary production in the food chain (green plants).

On the BBC this morning I even heard a listener letter that explained how volcanoes were the cause of the increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

As a real scientist with an MS is in Computer Science and a PHD in Math who has spent a 40 year career building computer models of physical systems I can say with 100 % confidence that NOBODY knows the long term effects of increased CO2.

Compared to those problems (bias and random variation), here is a large unknown: a 2 % increase in cloud cover would prevent the warming effect of increased CO2; will a 7 % increase in water vapor pressure, or 12 % increase in lightning ground strike rate, or a 2 % — 7 % increase in rainfall rate be accompanied by a 2 % increase in cloud cover?

The main objections levied by Michaels and Dayaratna were that the Obama Administration's calculations assume too much warming from CO2 emissions, underestimate the positive effects of increased CO2, and favor low discount rates to accentuate damages in the far future.

A study now being reported upon (most notably by Andrew Revkin in the New York Times) shows that the most likely result of increased CO2 is below the lower end of the scale as forecast by the UNs IPCC.

Even if all of the increased CO2 were anthropogenic, the rate of dissolution of CO2 into ocean would be temperature dependent; hence the atmospheric concentration would increase more in warm weather (lower rate of dissolution) than in cool weather (higher rate of dissolution.)

To be more precise, a net effect of the increased CO2 is to increase bicarbonate, carbonate, and hydrogen ion, and the effect of interaction with CaCO3 is that the carbonate ions released from CaCO3 partially compensate for a conversion of dissolved carbonate to bicarbonate.

Because the pH has decreased (that is measured) because of increased CO2 in the atmosphere and the decrease in pH matches what is expected from the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.

Indeed I've not yet discovered any proposed harmful effect of warming or of increased CO2.

What will be the next effects of increased CO2 on agricultural and forest productivity, and other vegetation?

Thus in supposedly «saving» the world from the at most minor effects of increased CO2 on temperature, the environmentalists will damage something that really matters — the ability of our economy to supply the needs of the US population and US competitiveness in world markets.

«It is assumed that the major contributors of CO2 are the burning of fossil fuels... There is no doubt that increases in fossil fuel usage and decreases of forest cover are aggravating the potential problem of increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

Isn't shrinking size in species one of the effects of increased CO2?

The thermodynamic law infringement, the source of increased CO2, the CO2 molecule lifetime argument, and the «saturation» argument, for example.

Developed nations such as the United States still insist that all nations must bear the economic pain of emissions cuts at the same time, while developing nations such as India are adamant that the developed nations, who have historically caused most of the increased CO2 levels, go first.

«Happer implies (without much evidence) that a world in which plants grow faster (because of increased CO2) would be beneficial for humans.

To repeat, it's not as simple as adding up the man made CO2 and assuming it accounts for all of the increased CO2 in the atmosphere (which has been fluctuating for millions of years).

I do think that forecasting how the climate might change on decadal timescales in the face of increased CO2 concentrations is a much more constrained problem than those that GCMs typically are set to deal with.

Something so obvious and so basic to the net impact of increased CO2 has NEVER, I repeat NEVER been quantified?

They get cloud feedbacks wrong by a factor 19 times larger than the entire effect of increased CO2 (Miller 2012).

N (1) Natural mechanisms play well more than a negligible role (as claimed by the IPCC) in the net changes in the climate system, which includes temperature variations, precipitation patterns, weather events, etc., and the influence of increased CO2 concentrations on climatic changes are less pronounced than currently imagined.

The feedbacks in the climate system are negative and, therefore, any effect of increased CO2 will be probably too small to discern because natural climate variability is much, much larger.

a) the troposphere has ten times as much mass as the stratosphere b) we live at the bottom of the troposphere c) the warming and cooling come via different physical effects of the increased CO2 and there is no reason for them to cancel, which they don't.

They don't even know how much of the increased CO2 in the atmosphere is anthropogenic and how much has been released from the oceans as a result of warming periods many hundreds of years ago.

Lacis did not like the use of «very likely» by the AR4 report because to him it is obvious first that the CO2 increase is more than accounted for by fossil fuel emissions, and second that the global temperature rise is more than accounted for by the expected effects of increased CO2.

The direct effects of increased CO2 on plants and ecosystems may be even more important.

indicating that the attribution of increased CO2 concentrations to anthropogenic sources during the first half of the 20th century is highly questionable.

Corporate documents from the late 1970s stated «there is no doubt» that the increased use of fossil fuels and declines in forest covers «are aggravating the problem of increased CO2 in the atmosphere.»

We are not yet able to physically measure the net forcing impact of increased CO2 concentrations, however, and must rely on model simulations to estimate this.

One thing that is possible is the nominal lag between applying heat and the presence of increased CO2 (and vice-verse) may vary with conditions.

If I'm wrong, show us convincing evidence of global harm as a result of the increased CO2.

Here are two extremes: (1) natural variability's contribution to global warming is negligible compared with the warming from increased CO2, and (2) the effect of increased CO2 is negligible compared with natural variations in the earth's surface temperature.

Someone like yourself, who is concerned about the impact of the increased CO2, is precisely the sort of person who should be most critical of the failures of the inquiries.

Because of the logarithmic decline in the greenhouse warming effect of increased amounts of CO2 there is never going to be enough greenhouse effect from any amount of increased CO2 to overturn the primary solar driver or the regular movements from warming to cooling and back again.

So, we have the capability to actually construct GCMs that arguably will be scientifically verifiable... so long as we drastically dial - down the warming effect of increased CO2?

For it to be a valid theory it has to prove why in the absence of increased co2 it became warm enough to grow grapes in England and barely in Greenland, similar plants in China.

I am no longer a «believer» in human caused global warming, there is simply no evidece for more than a small fraction of one degree C per century — and without that and the fertilisation effect of the increased CO2 that we are enjoying, the human race would starve.

But this bait is replaced by unfounded claims that the warming and other effects of increased CO2 will be catastrophic.»

Lines in the document include: «It is assumed that the major contributors of CO2 are the burning of fossil fuels... There is no doubt that increases in fossil fuel usage and decreases of forest cover are aggravating the potential problem of increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

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.

I'm not sure how either figure would have a bearing on the desirability, or affordability, of increased CO2 mitigation efforts though.

As you point out, many of the negative feedback effects that have been proposed would tend to decrease not only the effect of increased CO2, but also of whatever natural variability there may be.