Sentences with phrase «other ghgs»

Second, higher atmospheric CO2 and other GHGs concentrations are claimed to have been the primary cause of the claimed record setting GAST over the past 50 plus years.

I see the (nearly) black body radiation above and below those limits due to the H2O and CO2 (and other GHGs) which can (almost perfectly) absorb those wavelengths.

All other anthropogenic forcings (aerosols, other GHGs, etc.) are estimated by IPCC (AR4) to have cancelled one another out over the past (AR5 actually has them slightly positive on balance).

Makes sense, especially since it was the courts who told the EPA that the clean air act required them to regulate carbon dioxide and other GHGs as pollutants.

EPA did so and on December 15, 2009 issued its ruling that CO2 and other GHGs must be regulated.

The emissivity of CO2 and H2O and other GHGs is NOT always close to zero, but instead there are broad bands where the emissivity is not close to 1 (ie where these molecules can and do absorb and emit IR effectively given sufficient path length thru the molecules).

This tells us that over this period all other anthropogenic forcing components (aerosols, other GHGs, land use changes, surface albedo changes, etc.) essentially cancelled one another out, so we can ignore your statement «we suspect that aerosols caused cooling», as this is already compensated for by other anthropogenic warming beside CO2.

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/co2-temperature.html (doubters have been misdirected by the «trace gas» label, when it's actually quite powerful because it modulates other GHGs).

A positive feedback of 2.4 C per doubling would give 0.6 C in this period, but we suspect aerosols caused cooling, so this could be regarded as a lower limit, unless other GHGs like methane have offset the aerosols.

The SRES emissions scenarios also have different emissions for other GHGs and chemically active species such as carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic hydrocarbons.

In the uppermost atmosphere other wavelengths than those in the 15 µm absorption / emission peak of CO2 have little influence (what they have is due to the little H2O and other GHGs present).

This is further complicated by some political rejection of science - based future climate projections and unwillingness to consider alternative economic development pathways to lowering the emission of carbon dioxide and other GHGs from the Human — Earth systems.

It would imply that the CO2 forcing of near 2 W / m2 has already all been balanced by something, presumably a combination of increased aerosols, increased surface temperature, reduced other GHGs, increased clouds, increased surface albedo, and / or a weaker sun.

If one takes into account the human - induced changes in the other GHGs (CH4, N2O, CFCs), you'd get something like double that.

Re 422 wili — I was looking at figure 2 (as best I could in the little version you get from behind paywall)-- it looks like, for the DEP 4.5 emissions -LRB-(DEP refers to forcing (from anthropogenic emissions, I think) W / m ^ 2 in 2100) a bit more than doubling CO2 by 2100, setting aside other GHGs), if sensitivity is 3 K / doubling, the permafrost reservoir declines but starts to level off significantly before reaching 0 (I believe that's 0 % of the permafrost reservoir?).

(The total anthropogenic forcing includes other GHGs and aerosols; the net effect happens to be (with significant error bars) similar to that from CO2 alone.)

E.g. if one looks at the 1945 - 1970 period, the models use sulphate aerosols to offset the influence of CO2 and other GHGs.

Now I am not denying that it does, but how much warming is the result of the lapse rate and adiabatic heating resulting from the depth of the atmosphere and how much from CO2 and other GHGs «trapping» heat?

It seems perfectly reasonable to me that if we imagine the surface never emits that energy in the first place, - energy that is stored in the surface and just below, i.e. oceans, lakes, rivers, ground, and air, — just to mention a few, then any surface temperature change would be completely reliant on variations in Solar irradiation and advection mainly by Water Vapor (WV) but also by other GHGs that have the ability to contain more heat than the rest of the atmospheric gases.

-- It seems perfectly reasonable to me that if we imagine the surface never emits that energy in the first place, - energy that is stored in the surface and just below, i.e. oceans, lakes, rivers, ground, and air, — just to mention a few, then any surface temperature change would be completely reliant on variations in Solar irradiation and advection mainly by Water Vapor (WV) but also by other GHGs that have the ability to contain more heat than the rest of the atmospheric gases.

The other is to adjust A to account for the fact that some portion of the warming (perhaps 1/4) is due to other GHGs.

Factoring in the other ghgs brings the overall cumulative budget down from 1 trillion tons of carbon to 800 billion tons.

So when IPCC tells me that all anthropogenic forcing components other than CO2 (aerosols, albedo, land use, other GHGs, etc.) essentially cancel one another out, I have to accept this as likely to be correct.

(Besides, methane is included in IPCC's «other GHGs».)

The social cost of carbon (SCC)-- how much damage a ton of CO2 or other GHGs is doing (and will do in the future) to the planet — is a concept much revered in environmental circles as supporting rational policy making.

IPCC tells us that all anthropogenic forcing components other than CO2 (aerosols, other GHGs, etc.) cancelled one another out over this period, so the forcing from CO2 = total anthropogenic forcing ~ 1.6 W / m ^ 2.

This might be reason to think (if the result holds up) that stratospheric water vapor varies with multiple inputs, not that it is unrelated to other GHGs.

It amazes me that JERRYD and GERM KILLER have no understanding of what happens with the massive ever - expanding messes of organic wastes and sewage that we allow to undergo natural biodegrading to be reemitting trapped carbon dioxide and some other GHGs.

You wrote: «If not for the GHGs in the atmosphere (not just CO2 but also water vapor and other GHGs) it would be a heck of a lot cooler at night and, over the entire day and year, the Earth would be too cold to support life.»

The use of water vapor is also misleading — the findings of Solomon did not include any claim that stratospheric water vapor was unrelated to the concentration of other GHGs, only that it had declined recently (perhaps) for unknown reasons.

If not for the GHGs in the atmosphere (not just CO2 but also water vapor and other GHGs) it would be a heck of a lot cooler at night and, over the entire day and year, the Earth would be too cold to support life.

Other GHGs with high per unit effects but lower emissions are:.

Latent heat obviously can not escape directly to space, it is first converted to simply heat by condensation and then to radiation (by collisional excitation of CO2 and other GHGs).

The situation we have here is that the cooling effect of man - made aerosols has declined appreciably [since 1951] as CO2 emissions and other GHGs have increased, so we would expect even greater warming, which hasn't happened.

dT (1951 - 2010) = [dT (CO2) + dT (other GHGs)-- dT (anthro aerosols)-- dT (other - ve feedbacks) + dT (+ ve feedbacks)-RSB---[dT (natural aerosols) + / - dT (internal variability) + / - dT (external — solar] variability)

So in summary, you are using the same, simple logarithmic relationship that holds for CO2, even though some of the other GHGs have different behavior.

Foremost for this discussion, they include the solutions to radiative trasfer equations that predict the direct effect of [CO2], methane, and other GHGs.

IPCC gas told us that since 1750 the net impact of all anthropogenic forcing factors other than CO2 (including aerosols, other GHGs.

IPCC AR4 WG1 tells us that the all anthropogenic forcing components except CO2 (aerosols, other GHGs, land use changes, other changes in surface albedo, etc.) have essentially cancelled one another out, so we can use the estimated radiative forcing for CO2 (1.66 W / m ^ 2) to equate with total net anthropogenic forcing (1.6 W / m ^ 2).

One doesn't need a climate model to determine climate sensitivity (Arrhenius and others managed to do so without climate models), one doesn't need a model to measure CO2 and the other GHGs and their sources, and one doesn't need a model to determine that a few degrees C increase leaves us with an ice - free planet with drowned cities.

PA, even a conservative average of 3 ppm per year gets us to 650 ppm by 2100, and then you add the 20 - 30 % net effect of other GHGs and aerosols which brings it up to the 800 - 900 ppm CO2 - equivalent range, where you are now talking about the RCP6 scenario.

The existence of the greenhouse effect, the increase in CO2 (and other GHGs) over the last hundred years and its human cause, and the fact the planet warmed significantly over the 20th Century are not much in doubt.»

It also means emissions of other GHGs have to be addressed to the extent they really do add 40 % to the CO2 forcing, but the uncertainty is CO2 forcing + 35 % + / - 65 % from aerosols + GHGs in AR5.

EPA did so and on December 15, 2009 issued it's ruling that CO2 and other GHGs must be regulated.

There is also clouds (liqid) and water vapour (gas) plus other GHGs (Philliponi et al even correct for air temperature).

In the stratosphere ozone warms and the other GHGs cool.

It's part of the answer, the same way that water vapor is part of the answer, and other GHGs are part of the answer, and volcanos are a part of the answer, and clouds (and hence sunshine) are part of the answer.

But if you accept that the greenhouse effect is real, and that CO2 is a GHG, and that CO2 has increased (along with other GHGs), you have to accept the merit of my point: that solar, volcanoes, ocean currents and other natural variations do their thing, they vary, but GHGs exert a steady, constant upward forcing on temperature, which upward forcing is only offset by increased heat losses to space from a warmer planet.

The way they get the low sensitivity is to assume that the forcing is changing much faster than CO2, implying that the other GHGs have a much stronger effect than aerosols.

The C - ROADS (Climate Rapid Overview and Decision Support) simulator is based on the biogeophysical and integrated assessment literature and includes representations of the carbon cycle, other GHGs, radiative forcing, global mean surface temperature, and sea level change.