Sentences with phrase «warm earth»

The answers I have received as explanations for «greenhouse gases warm the Earth» are most definitely stupid, I'm not the one confused here, as I'm still trying to point out..

When the Earth is cold, when the oceans are cold, polar oceans freeze and they do not provide moisture for clouds and rain and snow and that does allow the sun to warm the Earth.

Now, add a source at greater than 15C (like a warm earth surface) and ad long as the rate of incoming 15 um radiation is greater than the 15 um radiation rate you already measured from your hohlraum there will be disequilibrium and the temperature of the hohlraum (not just the CO2 but all of the gas) will increase until the hohlraum is again emitting the same amount of 15 um radiation as is coming in.

The impact of the meteorite that wiped out the dinosaurs released vast amounts of CO2 from vaporising carbonate - rich rocks, pushing atmospheric CO2 levels up to approx 2,300 ppm resulting in a climatic forcing of +12 W - m -LRB--) 2 that would have been sufficient to warm the Earth's surface by 7.5 °C, in the absence of counter forcing by sulfate aerosols.

Ice retreats after this and this decreasing Albedo does warm the Earth.

Try and prove the MyrhhScienceFiction claim that the sun does not warm the earth.

My research looks at how much we can expect greenhouse gases to warm the earth this century and what that means for rainfall patterns worldwide.

That the sun doesn't warm the earth?

In a warming climate, it is anticipated that the cryosphere would shrink, the Earth's overall albedo would decrease and more solar energy would be absorbed to warm the Earth still further.

How many times do you (Myrrh) need to gave it explained: it is not necessary for visible light to warm the earth, for it to result in outgoing IR.

Myrrh, unless you can show that radiation from the sun does not warm the earth, you are wasting your time, just spouting junk - science.

Memphis October 28, 2012 at 2:53 am How many times do you (Myrrh) need to gave it explained: it is not necessary for visible light to warm the earth, for it to result in outgoing IR.

And anyway the whole Myrrh thing is so utterly pointless, unless he is going to further claim that the sun doesn't warm the earth AT ALL, ie by ANY wavelength.

Green house gases really don't warm the earth.

Gosh, y ’ all having such problems following simple explanations, where have I said the Sun doesn't warm the Earth?

HFCs warm Earth's atmosphere thousands of times more, molecule - for - molecule than CO2.

Many scientists tell us that within a decade, at current rates, we'll likely have put enough carbon in the atmosphere to warm the Earth past the Paris climate targets.

The CO2 would significantly warm the Earth; it might also lower ocean pH, raise sea levels significantly and change rainfall patterns.

Summing up the answer to the first question from the first Hub: we know from nearly two centuries of painstaking scientific work that rising atmospheric CO2 should — some might say «must» — warm the Earth.

When the three gases are converted into a comparable unit based on their potential to warm Earth over a century, the biosphere becomes a source of greenhouse gases.

Let the water vapor or some other greenhouse gas be reduced, and the warm earth will be losing more heat than it gains from sunlight.

That would be fatal if it was up to the Sun to warm the Earth.

Water vapor is the major greenhouse gas and helps to warm the Earth if temperatures are below the «equilibrium» level (thermostat temperature)-- so called positive feedback.

Melting of arctic sea - ice, antarctic ice shelves, and mountain ice and snow exposes the darker rock, soil, or sea beneath; which then absorb more of the Sun's heat and further warm the Earth.

OK, so if the sun warmed by 1 %, you would dismiss that this added forcing of only 4 W / m2 would also warm the earth.

Just last week, preliminary research at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in Kiel, Germany, suggested that natural variations in sea temperatures will cancel out the decade's 0.3 C global average rise predicted by the IPCC, before emissions start to warm the Earth again after 2015.

In Washington there was an awesome Earth Day warning from a government scientist, Dr. Jay Murray Mitchell said, «Pollution and over-pollution unless checked could so warm the earth in 200 years as to create a greenhouse effect melting the arctic ice cap and flooding vast areas of the world.»

«Please explain, for instance, in which way the tropopause region for which the so - called anthropogenic radiative forcing was estimated can warm the earth's surface which has a temperature of about 65 K higher than the tropopause region.

During recent years, as human fossil - fuel burning has continued to warm the Earth, such fires have become more and more common.

If manmade CO2, or anything else, attempts to warm the earth, it will melt more Arctic Sea Ice and that will cause more snow.

More Snow cools Earth and Lack of Snow allows the sun to warm Earth.

How is absorption of infrared proof that «greenhouse gases warm the Earth 33 °C from the -18 °C it would be without them», when without water the Earth temp would be 67 °C?

I am not convinced that secondary feedbacks will warm the Earth more than the couple degrees C due to the extra CO2 in a century.

You do not warm the earth while it has plenty of ice.

Solar energy arrives in the form of short - wavelength radiation; some of this radiation is reflected away but, on a clear day, most of it passes straight through the atmosphere to warm the earth's surface.

As a result, to warm the Earth +0.01 °C about 16.5 billion tonnes of human new CO2 emissions would be required.

Taken alone, a doubling of the carbon dioxide concentration would warm the Earth by 1.2 0.1 °C (Dufresne and Bony 2008).

The adjacent chart reflects poorly on the «consensus» science that unequivocally states the human CO2 emissions must first increase the lower troposphere temperatures in order to warm the Earth.

if it snows less when oceans are cold and the arctic is closed, that has to allow the sun to warm the earth.

So to me the lukewarmer agrees with the basic physics that CO2 acts to reflect some light back to the ground and therefore agree that more CO2 will warm the Earth.

You argue that CO2 should warm the earth rapidly because the heat capacity of the atmosphere is small.

Warm Earth turns and is under the night sky.

If a lack of air conditioning can not warm a room, then I fail to see how a lack of volcanic aerosols can warm the Earth.

Now I think, not only does excess CO2 warm the earth, creating (net) havoc, but also does other harms not directly related to GW.

How does the greenhouse effect warm the earth?

They will mostly wonder how we could not see that adding more and more greenhouse gases could only warm the Earth.

This effect, called the permafrost carbon feedback, is not present in the global climate change models used to estimate how warm the earth could get over the next century.

My point is that in the same breath, this person said that whatever we are doing to warm the Earth will be negated because the Earth seems to balance itself out when the scale is tipped on way or the other.

In the original article Angela did write: «This effect, called the permafrost carbon feedback, is not present in the global climate change models used to estimate how warm the earth could get over the next century.»

Furthermore certain sources of energy that are considered «clean» such as nuclear power and the potential, in the future, to transmit energy from satellites to the Earth will continue to generate waste heat (thermal pollution) that will continue to warm the Earth.