Sentences with phrase «significant atmospheric effect»

Neil Harris of the European Ozone Research Coordinating Unit in Cambridge, England says: «It is hard to see how this mechanism would have a significant atmospheric effect.»

Not exact matches

«We show that uptake of atmospheric NH3 (ammonia) onto surfaces containing TiO2 (titanium dioxide) is not a permanent removal process, as previously thought, but rather a photochemical route for generating reactive oxides of nitrogen that play a role in air pollution and are associated with significant health effects,» the authors write.

This study further highlights the complexity and dynamic nature of atmospheric particles that may have a significant effect on the environment.

A claim that CO2 can't possibly have a significant effect solely because of its small atmospheric mixing ratio, can be refuted as a general claim by reference to other substances (such as arsenic, plutonium or Vitamin C) whose large effects due to small concentrations are well known.

The team set out to present its findings «in plain English» to congress and the media — findings which suggested a lack of significant or human - caused global warming while concluding that «if the earth were to warm slightly, and atmospheric CO2 were to increase, the effects would be mostly beneficial.»

The trouble is that there remains little empirical evidence to support the idea, as we were surprised to find out when we talked to UC San Diego atmospheric physicist Veerabhadran Ramanathan about his research showing that another type of aerosol — black carbon — had a significant warming effect:

In particular, the authors find fault with IPCC's conclusions relating to human activities being the primary cause of recent global warming, claiming, contrary to significant evidence that they tend to ignore, that the comparatively small influences of natural changes in solar radiation are dominating the influences of the much larger effects of changes in the atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations on the global energy balance.

In the 1980s, a significant increasing Gaa [atmospheric greenhouse effect] tendency exists with a linear estimate of 0.19 W m − 2 yr − 1.

Again, no significant trend of the global averaged Gaa [atmospheric greenhouse effect] is found from 2003 to 2014 (Fig. 2) because the enhanced warming effect over the western tropical Pacific is largely counteracted by the weakened warming influence on the central tropical Pacific.

Unless more CO2 from human sources could increase total atmospheric density it could not have a significant effect on global tropospheric temperature.

i) The total exchange of radiation between Space and the TOA and between surface and the TOA is sufficiently large that an increase in the radiative capabilities of an atmospheric constituent that amounts to 0.04 % of the atmosphere would appear unlikely to have any significant effect.

In fact, the best current studies show that increases in atmospheric CO2 levels have no significant effects on global temperatures and encourage plant growth.

Results of previously published empirical studies are used to demonstrate that the water vapor feedback mechanism, so important to the calculation of a significant climatic effect for a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration, appears to be counter-balanced by another feedback mechanism of opposite sign.

We do not need models to anticipate that significant rises in atmospheric CO2 concentrations harbor the potential to raise temperatures significantly (Fourier, 1824, Arrhenius, 1896), nor that the warming will cause more water to evaporate (confirmed by satellite data), nor that the additional water will further warm the climate, nor that this effect will be partially offset by latent heat release in the troposphere (the «lapse - rate feedback»), nor that greenhouse gas increases will warm the troposphere but cool the stratosphere, while increases in solar intensity will warm both — one can go on and on

But what if decreases in atmospheric CO2 levels have no significant effect on global temperatures?

The fact that Wahl and Ammann (2006) admit that the results of the MBH methodology does not coincide with the results of other methods such as borehole methods and atmospheric - ocean general circulation models and that Wahl and Ammann adjust the MBH methodology to include the PC4 bristlecone / foxtail pine effects are significant reasons we believe that the Wahl and Amman paper does not convincingly demonstrate the validity of the MBH methodology.

In fact, recent research shows that changes in atmospheric CO2 levels have no significant effect on global temperatures.

True — it probably will not have a measurable effect of atmospheric temperatures per se» but remember a significant number of temperature measuring stations are close ground level and these stations may record lower temperatures in each locality.

This result sheds new light on the effect of long - term fertilization by iron and macronutrients on carbon sequestration, suggesting that changes in iron supply from belowâ as invoked in some palaeoclimatic and future climate change scenarios11â may have a more significant effect on atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations than previously thought.

At present levels of atmospheric CO2 increases to the CO2 have no significant effect on global temperature.

So, as the empirical measurements which I cited for you show, at present levels of atmospheric CO2 increases to the CO2 have no significant effect on global temperature.

Fourth, a recent study concludes that the basic alarmist hypothesis is scientifically incorrect by showing that increases in atmospheric CO2 levels have no statistically significant effect on global temperatures.

Radiative gases have a critical role in the fluid dynamics of the atmosphere and this has a significant effect on atmospheric temperature.

After all CO2 is itself only a tiny portion of total greenhouse gases so that it can not have any significant long term effect when the water vapour primarily affecting atmospheric heat retention is in turn itself but a tiny proportion of global heat retaining capacity when one adds in the vastly greater oceanic heat retaining effect.

A detailed and very accurate calculation of the atmospheric flows of moist air must take into account also the effects related to the volume taken by water vapor both when water vapor is added by evaporation and when it's removed in condensation, but these effects are very minor corrections and not a source of anything significant.

The most likely candidate for that climatic variable force that comes to mind is solar variability (because I can think of no other force that can change or reverse in a different trend often enough, and quick enough to account for the historical climatic record) and the primary and secondary effects associated with this solar variability which I feel are a significant player in glacial / inter-glacial cycles, counter climatic trends when taken into consideration with these factors which are, land / ocean arrangements, mean land elevation, mean magnetic field strength of the earth (magnetic excursions), the mean state of the climate (average global temperature), the initial state of the earth's climate (how close to interglacial - glacial threshold condition it is) the state of random terrestrial (violent volcanic eruption, or a random atmospheric circulation / oceanic pattern that feeds upon itself possibly) / extra terrestrial events (super-nova in vicinity of earth or a random impact) along with Milankovitch Cycles.

Opening of the Drake Passage surely affected ocean circulation around Antarctica, but efforts to find a significant effect on global temperature have relied on speculation about possible effects on atmospheric CO2 [37].

The available data strongly suggest that the anthropogenic emissions of CO2 will have no significant long term effect on atmospheric CO2 concentration.

As GCR is the primary source of atmospheric ionization, it has been suggested that GCR may act to amplify relative small variations in solar activity into climatologically significant effects (Ney, 1959), via a hypothesised relationship between ionization and cloudiness (e.g., Dickinson, 1975; Kirkby, 2007).

Absorbing aerosols heat the air, alter regional atmospheric stability and vertical motions, and affect the large - scale circulation and hydrologic cycle with significant regional climate effects.

The debate is not how gases behave in isolation in laboratory conditions but rather how the atmospheric system behaves as a whole with all its complexity and nuances, and it is because of this that many are skeptical as to whether in reality there is any significant «greenhouse» effect.

Perturbations to the atmospheric inventory of radiatively active species may have a significant impact on the climate of Venus and upon the stability of the greenhouse effect.

I also predict it will be accompanied by studies showing either: a) The quantity of atmospheric aerosol from the 40's -70's is much less than previously thought b) The cooling effect of aerosols is much less significant than previously thought

If CO2 (and its «back radiation») had any significant effect, then a person would expect that, at the same atmospheric pressure, an almost - all - carbon - dioxide - atmosphere would show a much greater «greenhouse effect», but what the almost - all - carbon - dioxide - atmosphere shows is ONLY an incremental temperature increase based on closer proximity to the Sun.

An albedo decrease of only 1 %, bringing the Earth's albedo from 30 % to 29 %, would cause an increase in the black - body radiative equilibrium temperature of about 1 °C, a highly significant value, roughly equivalent to the direct radiative effect of a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration.

1) Abstract «Such changes could have significant ramifications for global sea level, the ocean thermohaline circulation, native coastal communities, and commercial activities, as well as effects on the global surface energy and moisture budgets, atmospheric and oceanic circulations, and geosphere - biosphere feedbacks.

The oceanic Gaa [atmospheric greenhouse effect] exhibits a notable increasing trend with a rate of 0.21 W m − 2 yr − 1 in 1979 — 1991, whereas its rate of change (− 0.04 W m − 2 yr − 1) during 1992 — 2014 is not statistically significant.