Sentences with phrase «point about the greenhouse gases»

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.

And having resolved that, the science challenge for Myrrh is now the point about greenhouse gasses he keeps ducking (ie does he dispute the standard account of CO2's absorption spectra?).

Not exact matches

But if people continue to pump greenhouse gases into the air at current rates, global temperatures could increase by as much as 7.8 °C (about 14 °F) by 2100, the new report points out.

The post provides useful detail highlighting the prime point of contention about Howarth's work — the choices he makes in defining the greenhouse impact of methane (from gas wells and pipes) and carbon dioxide (from coal burning).

This investment is not just about improving the way people move from point A to point B; it's also about providing access and mobility for the poor and improving road safety, not to mention reducing transport - related greenhouse gas emissions.

A host of surveys show that most Americans remain doubtful, disengaged, or confused about the basic science pointing to centuries - long changes in climate patterns and coastlines if greenhouse gas emissions from burning fuels and forests are not reduced.

Hi all — Dan and Roger P. Jr. continue to make a really important point --- that it isn't all about reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

With high - level talks over a new international climate agreement beginning in Lima, Peru, it's worth reviewing some basic points about climate change driven by the buildup of human - generated greenhouse gases.

I'd summarize Lou's main point as being that it's meaningless to sound off about how much more «potent» a greenhouse gas methane (natural gas) may be, compared to CO2, unless you also take into account how small methane emissions are relative to CO2.

Instead of waving your hands, you might try to address the point raised about the role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

In my earlier posting, I tried to make the distinction that global climate change (all that is changing in the climate system) can be separated into: (1) the global warming component that is driven primarily by the increase in greenhouse gases, and (2) the natural (externally unforced) variability of the climate system consisting of temperature fluctuations about an equilibrium reference point, which therefore do not contribute to the long - term trend.

John Carter August 8, 2014 at 12:58 am chooses to state his position on the greenhouse effect in the following 134 word sentence: «But given the [1] basics of the greenhouse effect, the fact that with just a very small percentage of greenhouse gas molecules in the air this effect keeps the earth about 55 - 60 degrees warmer than it would otherwise be, and the fact that through easily recognizable if [2] inadvertent growing patterns we have at this point probably at least [3] doubled the total collective amount in heat absorption and re-radiation capacity of long lived atmospheric greenhouse gases (nearly doubling total that of the [4] leading one, carbon dioxide, in the modern era), to [5] levels not collectively seen on earth in several million years — levels that well predated the present ice age and extensive earth surface ice conditions — it goes [6] against basic physics and basic geologic science to not be «predisposed» to the idea that this would ultimately impact climate.»

When Gort first visited in 1951, it spent little effort on climate change issues, focusing on other aspects of our planet instead: Gort returned in 2012 to answer puny human climatologist questions about whether climate change caused particular weather phenomena by making an obvious point: rather than struggle with theoretical analysis, you can simply use your Climate Changeometer to remove all the excess greenhouse gases and aerosols above natural levels and then measure the outcome.

Driving this point home, the global climate cooled after 1940 until about 1975 — in spite of the copious emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the industrial boom years after World War II.

You make an arguable point about Bob May's description of CO2 as the principal greenhouse gas.

If you're going to argue with them about gravity you need to first point out they don't have any, because they have created an entirely imaginary world for their Greenhouse Effect of imaginary molecules without the real gas properties which make real gases subject to gravity.

I have absolutely no doubt that at the current rate of [greenhouse gas emissions] we can cross a tipping point, and when that occurs it's too late to do anything about it.»

You pointed out, rightly so far as I know, that China is greatly increasing its greenhouse gas production and Germany is about to do so.

-- it is all daft theories about it not being greenhouse gases, radiation or water vapor — and endless quibbling from both sides of the blogosphere climate trenches about the talking points — Arctic ice, seal level rise, surface temperature trends, the LIA and MWP — in the very latest reconstruction.

In this era of global warming, it is inoperative, because the whole point of controlling greenhouse - gas emissions is to do something about the weather.

Point above being that one could write a long list of reasonable initiatives without mentioning anything about greenhouse gases or climate change, which could arguably be good in general, but possibly also slow the change, should it happen in the first place of course.

... Drawdown is the point in time when greenhouse gas concentrations peak in the atmosphere and begin to go down on a year - to - year basis... I hadn't thought about solutions much until I saw the wedges, in 2001.

Assuming that Congress continues to do nothing on climate, that $ 655 billion floor for regulatory justification (and the totally unknown ceiling) will prove significant when at some point a hypothetical second Clinton Administration — which promises to be serious about climate in a way that the Obama Administration apparently has not been — resorts to Section 115 of the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

The Environmental Working Group's report, «Ethanol's Broken Promise,» raises serious questions about the claimed environmental benefits of corn - based ethanol, pointing out the millions of acres of grassland and wetlands converted to corn and the annual greenhouse gas emissions stemming from ethanol production:

The points of this paper are not really specific to CO2, but rather a more general way to think about greenhouse gases (GHG).

And as Judith Curry points out about the current climate, there are many problems with the claim that «more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together» — far from speaking for itself, the statement needs unpacking and its premises interrogating.

Skeptics are working from a scientific point of view - they admit that the evidence for CO2 being a greenhouse gas is overwhelming and that pumping lots of it into the atmosphere will have an effect, an effect as the IPCC says of about 1 degree of warming.

But in the grand scheme of things, that amounts to a 6 percentage point cut in US greenhouse gases — or about one - quarter of the emission cuts necessary to hit Obama's 2025 climate goal.

An atmosphere with no greenhouse gases will still have a lapse rate and that's the start and end of any point I wanted to make about lapse rates in this thread.