Sentences with phrase «trace gases such»

Indeed, strong observational evidence and results from modeling studies indicate that, at least over the last 50 years, human activities are a major contributor to climate change.Direct human impact is through changes in the concentration of certain trace gases such as carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and water vapor, known collectively as greenhouse gases.

But few of us appreciate what exactly it is in the atmosphere that makes the effect work and why small changes in trace gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) might make a difference.

Some trace gases such as methane have a stronger impact on the heat balance of the earth, per molecule, than CO2 does.

The use of the paper quoted in the head post by Judith, however needs to be heavily qualified in that natural variation vs man made variation wrt to a trace gas such as CO2 might not easily be resolved.

If you can why do we have an energy problem when patently a trace gas such as CO2 (but not water vapour?)

Not exact matches

They carefully selected ions that react with volatile trace gases, but don't react with abundant compounds in breath such as oxygen and nitrogen.

That's precise enough to ensure detection of small increases in trace gases due to large, distributed sources such as cities.

The orbits of exocomets on Beta Pictoris could also help scientists trace the presence and migration of larger, undetected bodies such as gas giant planets in the planetary system, says Russel White, an astronomer at Georgia State University in Atlanta who was not involved in the study.

The new portable kit collects trace chemicals while analysis is performed with other instruments such as gas chromatography and mass spectrometry, which can also be made portable.

With such emissions and temperature tendency, other trace greenhouse gases including methane and nitrous oxide would be expected to increase, adding to the effect of CO2.

But I have to wonder what they'd get if they considered some of the other trace gases mentioned above, such as CO, 14CO, and H2.

It said «Scenario A assumes continued exponential trace gas growth, scenario B assumes a reduced linear linear (sic) growth of trace gases, and scenario C assumes a rapid curtailment of trace gas emissions such that the net climate forcing ceases to increase after the year 2000»

Only molecules made of at least three atoms absorb heat radiation and thus only such trace gases makes the greenhouse effect, and among these CO2 is the second most important after water vapor.

There are enough health - damaging pollutants in the air today such that, if they (tropospheric ozone, its principal precursor methane, black soot, and some other trace gases that contribute to the global warming) were reduced by feasible amounts, the planet's energy balance could be restored, or nearly so.

As curator of an ancient art form: «the trace gas radiative transfer model» I congratulate you for your persistence in keeping such objects of art in the public eye.

Reducing the burning of coal will have co-impacts such as reducing other climatically active trace gases and particulate matter (or its precursors).

Scenario C drastically reduces trace gas growth between 1990 and 2000 such that the greenhouse climate forcing ceases to in crease after 2000..

It's truly mind - boggling how a change by a mere few parts per million of trace atmospheric gases can have such a huge effect on the surface temperature.

Administration of these funds should be such as to continually evaluate and reward those countries that are most successful in taking the needed actions that store carbon and reduce trace gas abundances, thus avoiding graft and funds misuse

He also claimed that «other factors such as sun spot cycles and oscillations in the Earth's orbit are at least as important for climate change as this trace gas — which, far from being pollution, is actually essential for life to exist.»

So Arrhenius had a couple of wild guesses at what the warming would be from carbon dioxide after misreading Fourier and without ever having established if such a trace gas could have such great effects of raising global temperatures several degrees C, and its now a «law»?

Skeptical «Tracer» (Accept as provisionally true that CO2 is just a trace gas or some variation of this thought and that anthropogenic increases will have no noticeable affect on the climate in comparison to other natural affects such as solar, cosmic rays, etc. but still honestly open to data that might alter this view.)

In principle small changes — such as in trace atmospheric gases — can accumulate in chaotic systems and precipitate wildly out of proportion to the initial impetus.

Astronomical cycles, solar irradiation, accumulating atmospheric trace - gases such as CO2, have precisely zero bearing on Earth's continental dispositions.

Occam's razor just says there is no such thing as complicated feedbacks from a man - made fraction of a trace gas.

temperature, other climatic variables, and concentrations of aerosols and trace gases; and (2) making raw and processed atmospheric measurements accessible in a form that enables a number of different groups to replicate and experiment with the processing of the more widely disseminated data sets such as the MSU tropospheric temperature record.

Scenario «C» [chart's cyan curve] drastically reduces trace gas growth between 1990 and 2000 such that the greenhouse climate forcing ceases to increase after 2000.»

I find it highly unlikely that a trace gas can have such significant impacts on heating the other 99.9 % of our atmosphere, considering that CO2 only absorbs 3 narrow bands of IR.

I should have never been forced to know of such things as ENSO, or AMO, or mix of atmospheric CO2, much less, the absorption spectrum of trace gases.

We certainly do not see any effect that can be traced to greenhouse gases, such as CO2.

name not remembered who was spouting about CO2 being such a tiny trace gas that it obviously can have no effect (been reading too much WUWT I suspect!)

However, the fundamental argument of the AGW theory is that this trace gas (at slightly less than 0.04 % or 400 ppm) is THE key ingredient to controlling a massively complex system such as climate.

Yet, based on our understanding of the climate impact of greenhouse gases (GHG) such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and other trace gases, we should have observed even more warming than this.

Most of the other trace greenhouse gases (there are plenty), such as chloroflourocarbons (CFCs) and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6), are almost exclusively a result of industrial activity.

This will vary slightly against the global mean sea level figure but, with such a well - mixed trace gas, the differences are trivial.

The current approach that is generally pursued assumes essentially that past climate variability is indistinguishable from a stochastic red - noise process... Given such a null hypothesis, the official consensus of IPCC (1995) tilts towards a global warming effect of recent trace - gas emissions, which exceeds the cooling effect of anthropogenic aerosol emissions.»

Retrieved variables from CrIS and ATMS include temperature, moisture, and pressure profiles, surface emissivity and temperature, total - column ozone, and additional possible data products such as trace gases (CO, N2O, CH4, and CO2).

But Kyllo was not followed by the Supreme Court of Canada in R v Tessling, [2004] 3 SCR 432 where Justice Ian Binnie, writing for a unanimous court, at para. 51, agreed with Justice John Paul Stevens, speaking for the minority in Kyllo, that, ``...» public officials should not have to avert their senses or their equipment from detecting emissions in the public domain such as excessive heat, traces of smoke, suspicious odors, odorless gasses, airborne particulars, or radioactive emissions, any of which could identify hazards to the community.»