Sentences with phrase «small atmospheric increases»

Not exact matches

Gray believes that the increased atmospheric heat — which he calls a «small warming» — is ``... likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations.»

While ECS is the equilibrium global mean temperature change that eventually results from atmospheric CO2 doubling, the smaller TCR refers to the global mean temperature change that is realised at the time of CO2 doubling under an idealised scenario in which CO2 concentrations increase by 1 % yr — 1 (Cubasch et al., 2001; see also Section 8.6.2.1).

For the hydrological modelling of the Thames river catchment done at CEH we showed that the changes in atmospheric circulation and precipitation caused higher peak 30 - day river flow, while flood risk mapping revealed a small increase in flood risk for properties in the Thames catchment.

The CO2 solubility change due to the increase in ocean temperatures is small compared to the change in the atmospheric concentration.

The aim of this study is to investigate the impact of small - scale atmospheric fluctuations on the modeled climate sensitivity to increased CO2 concentration.

It leaves only a fairly small amount of warming attributable to CO2 emissions and therefore indicates a low sensitivity to increased atmospheric CO2.

The important point here is that a small external forcing (orbital for ice - ages, or GHG plus aerosols & land use changes in the modern context) can be strongly amplified by the positive feedback mechanism (the strongest and quickest is atmospheric water vapor - a strong GHG, and has already been observed to increase.

Starting with zero atmospheric LW absorption, adding any small amount cools the whole atmopshere towards a skin temperature and warms the surface — tending to produce a troposphere (the forcing at any level will be positive, and thus will be positive at the tropopause; it will increase downward toward the surface if the atmosphere were not already as cold as the skin temperature, thus resulting in atmospheric cooling toward the skin temperature; cooling within the troposphere will be balanced by convective heating from the surface at equilibrium, with that surface + troposphere layer responding to tropopause - level forcing.)

Even if climate sensitivity is somewhat less than the IPCC's median value of about 3 degrees Celsius, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are increasing exponentially, so a smaller value merely buys an extra decade or two until the same amount of warming is reached.

We are increasing the atmospheric concentrations of several greenhouse gases, not by a small percentage, but by factors of two or more.

But the evidence shows this can't be true; temperature changes before CO2 in every record of any duration for any time period; CO2 variability does not correlate with temperature at any point in the last 600 million years; atmospheric CO2 levels are currently at the lowest level in that period; in the 20th century most warming occurred before 1940 when human production of CO2 was very small; human production of CO2 increased the most after 1940 but global temperatures declined to 1985; from 2000 global temperatures declined while CO2 levels increased; and any reduction in CO2 threatens plant life, oxygen production, and therefore all life on the planet.

If Mackay means by this that only a small amount of the ~ 39 % increase in atmospheric CO2 since «pre-industrial» times is directly attributable to human CO2 emissions, I'd say this sounds much too low (but I have not asked Mackay whether or not that is what he had in mind and, if so, what his basis is).

On Earth the proportion of CO2 is so small that it can not affect overall atmospheric density even if it increases by many multiples of the current level.

Still to be delivered: proof that the globe, or even that small mass of air above that small part of the Earth known as the Arctic, is being heated by increased atmospheric CO2.

His conclusion: Yes, increased atmospheric CO2 is reducing ocean PH, BUT it's much too small to be measureable, and it doesn't mean anything of consequence for the oceans.»

We know that the warming effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide is logarithmic (meaning each additional unit has less effect than the one preceding) and estimates of warming due to increased carbon dioxide since the Industrial Revolution are really quite small.

Importantly, the degree of neutralisation of the oceans from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is too small to be measured.

Why is it that revolutionary changes in our social / economic / political system are greeted with enthusiasm, as «progress», and yet the rather small increase on atmospheric [CO2], a byproduct of cheap transport and electricity that underpins our whole way of life, is treated as a disaster?

Since water vapor contributes 95 % of the wrongly named «greenhouse effect» and since the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide has a logarithmic and declining effect, the variation in temperature at the surface must be vanishingly small.

It is but a small step from explaining to the public how the climate will change as the result of global warming due to increasing atmospheric CO2, to explaining what can and what needs to be done to counteract the global warming.

«The proportionality of warming to cumulative emissions depends in part on a cancellation of the saturation of carbon sinks with increasing cumulative emissions (leading to a larger airborne fraction of cumulative emissions for higher emissions) and the logarithmic dependence of radiative forcing on atmospheric CO2 concentration [leading to a smaller increase in radiative forcing per unit increase in atmospheric CO2 at higher CO2 concentrations; Matthews et al. (2009)-RSB-.

While ECS is the equilibrium global mean temperature change that eventually results from atmospheric CO2 doubling, the smaller TCR refers to the global mean temperature change that is realised at the time of CO2 doubling under an idealised scenario in which CO2 concentrations increase by 1 % yr — 1 (Cubasch et al., 2001; see also Section 8.6.2.1).

This small increase in H2O then increases atmospheric temperature since H20 is a strong GHG which then allows more H2O to be absorbed etc (positive feedback loop).

In the context of the past millennium (according to that graph) that warming seems as unusual as the one we're now under and it took place at a time when the increase of atmospheric CO2 was still small.

This means that there is no validity to the comment that this is «still considerably smaller than the estimated rise in temperatures from a continuation of current CO2 emission rates» especially considering the fact that CO2 emissions from humans are definitely not the prime source of the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

«The close correlation between temperature increase and atmospheric CO2 increase, including a small delay, is indicative of temperature drive mechanism of CO2 liberation.

At current CO2 concentrations, the 667 wavenumber line is «saturated» in the sense that IR from the surface is absorbed almost completely over a small distance and further increases in CO2 will have minimal effect on its ability to intercept IR and mediate surface and atmospheric warming.

For example, the atmospheric warming due to increased CO2 might well be expected to increase water evaporation so as to keep Relative Humidity constant (albeit raising Specific Humidity), so amplifying the small warming effect of CO2 itself.

«the GREATER the increase in the worlds human population is,...... the SMALLER the increase in atmospheric CO2 ppm will be.»

Over time, the small annual increases have raised the atmospheric concentration of CO2 by around 35 % or so.

Of course I haven't read what Salby can propose, but until I see something that explains the whole issue and not just a small corner of it, I have strong trust that the present main stream explanation is correct within the commonly stated limits of accuracy of order of 30 % of the increase in the atmospheric increase of CO2.

The size of the reservoirs are relevant in the sense that a 50 % decline in atmospheric CO2 is matched by only a very small percentage increase in ocean CO2 for the pCO2 balance to be reached.

In my paper http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef200914u I use a simple model of the carbon cycle to show that only a small proportion of atmospheric CO2 should be expected to be of directly anthropogenic origin, even if anthropogenic emissions are 100 % responsible for the observed increase.

Looking at the Keeling curve, or any of the other long - term atmospheric CO2 data sets, we see that interannual variability in temperature only produces relatively small fluctuations in the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, as discussed in IPCC AR4.

This study finds that the recent swift increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to faster economic growth coupled with a halt in carbon intensity reductions, in addition to natural sinks removing a smaller proportion of emissions from the air.

Research published in Science shows that up to 7 million tons of methane is released annually from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf — a small percentage of total greenhouse gas emissions, but potentially enough to account for recent increases in atmospheric methane levels.

None of these could have been caused by an increase in atmospheric CO2, Model projections of warming during recent decades have greatly exceeded what has been observed, The modelling community has openly acknowledged that the ability of existing models to simulate past climates is due to numerous arbitrary tuning adjustments, Observations show no statistically valid trends in flooding or drought, and no meaningful acceleration whatsoever of pre-existing long term sea level rise (about 6 inches per century) worldwide, Current carbon dioxide levels, around 400 parts per million are still very small compared to the averages over geological history, when thousands of parts per million prevailed, and when life flourished on land and in the oceans.

I haven't yet studied the article in detail but my thoughts are that the relative uncertainties are high, as expected since the atmospheric CO2 level at a given time is the response of the complex carbon cycle to the net anthro increase (6 Gt from fossil + est 2 Gt from land use change), small but not negligible compared to the gross carbon cycle fluxes (90 Gt to / from ocean, 120 Gt to / from biosphere).

Regardless, climate models are made interesting by the inclusion of «positive feedbacks» (multiplier effects) so that a small temperature increment expected from increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide invokes large increases in water vapor, which seem to produce exponential rather than logarithmic temperature response in the models.