The panel is putting its hopes in technologies that allow us to pull carbon
out of the atmosphere toward the end of the century.
Not exact matches
It is not even the actual scandal or wrongdoing that will happen no matter how careful we are; a move
toward full - time legislators would provide an
atmosphere where even the very appearance
of impropriety could not survive because influence peddling would have been largely stamped
out.
Chinese producers can pollute the hell
out of their country (and the world's
atmosphere) because they are far behind more developed countries in terms
of their attitudes
toward this kind
of thing.
As a plane flies through a thunderstorm or other electrically charged environment, the outside
of the plane begins to be polarized, forming «leaders,» or channels
of highly conductive plasma, flowing from opposite ends
of the plane and eventually
out toward oppositely charged regions
of the
atmosphere.
[1] CO2 absorbs IR, is the main GHG, human emissions are increasing its concentration in the
atmosphere, raising temperatures globally; the second GHG, water vapor, exists in equilibrium with water / ice, would precipitate
out if not for the CO2, so acts as a feedback; since the oceans cover so much
of the planet, water is a large positive feedback; melting snow and ice as the
atmosphere warms decreases albedo, another positive feedback, biased
toward the poles, which gives larger polar warming than the global average; decreasing the temperature gradient from the equator to the poles is reducing the driving forces for the jetstream; the jetstream's meanders are increasing in amplitude and slowing, just like the lower Missippi River where its driving gradient decreases; the larger slower meanders increase the amplitude and duration
of blocking highs, increasing drought and extreme temperatures — and 30,000 + Europeans and 5,000 plus Russians die, and the US corn crop, Russian wheat crop, and Aussie wildland fire protection fails — or extreme rainfall floods the US, France, Pakistan, Thailand (driving up prices for disk drives — hows that for unexpected adverse impacts from AGW?)
Now, as I pointed
out in an earlier post (# 104), there IS some evidence
of a trend
toward serious oceanic heating beginning roughly 21 years after 1979 (i.e., 2000), which suggests that this could be due to heat transfer from the
atmosphere beginning in ca 1979.
Victor wrote at 205, «Now, as I pointed
out in an earlier post (# 104), there IS some evidence
of a trend
toward serious oceanic heating beginning roughly 21 years after 1979 (i.e., 2000), which suggests that this could be due to heat transfer from the
atmosphere beginning in ca 1979.»
Since, if I understood correctly, scientists point
out that the reduction
of CO2 in the
atmosphere, even if all emissions stopped today, will take decades, I believe positively and steadily moving
toward the goal will be most effective for the long - term.
On the question
of hurricanes, the theoretical arguments that more energy and water vapor in the
atmosphere should lead to stronger storms are really sound (after all, storm intensity increases going from pole
toward equator), but determining precisely how human influences (so including GHGs [greenhouse gases] and aerosols, and land cover change) should be changing hurricanes in a system where there are natural external (solar and volcanoes) and internal (e.g., ENSO, NAO [El Nino - Southern Oscillation, North Atlantic Oscillation]-RRB- influences is quite problematic — our climate models are just not good enough yet to carry
out the types
of sensitivity tests that have been done using limited area hurricane models run for relatively short times.