Sentences with phrase «warming effect of»

«This means that, although carbon dioxide concentrations were high hundreds of millions of years ago, the net warming effect of CO2 and sunlight was less.

In effect, the warming effect of CO2 is a diminishing return relationship.

The study, by experts at the DLR German Aerospace Center, estimated that the net warming effect for the Earth of contrails and related cirrus clouds at any one time was 31 milliwatts per square meter, more than the warming effect of accumulated CO2 from aviation of 28 milliwatts.

Those facts are, in principle, taught at school and at university, but one still manages to incriminate CO2 alongside this learning, in using a dirty trick that presents the warming effect of CO2 as minor but exacerbated, through feedback loops, by the other greenhouse effects.

If so, then it strongly suggests that the warming effect of CO2 is close to zero.

When you consider even the most extreme claim for the global warming effect of human CO2, it is within the error of the estimate of almost every single variable.

Locally — in heavily urban environments for instance — this can be an issue, but on a global basis it is about 2 orders of magnitude smaller than the warming effect of increasing CO2 (1.7 W / m2).

One hundred times a background level would double the warming effect of methane in the locality.

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.»

But if they do, it is possible that the warming effect of CO2 could quickly double.

The point is opening the cold water tap moderated the warming effect of water flowing from the hot tap, thus the temperature of the water from the hot tap no longer correlated with the temperature of the water accumulating in the tub.

Fortunately, the warming effect of these industrial chemicals may soon be leveling off since they have been banned on the basis of their ozone - destroying capability.

As evidenced by your continued refusal to answer a simple question, when all the information has been given to you and the equation you've used before to find the warming effect of CO2 is one you can use again here.

De Witt, are you saying «THS???» because you don't know it stands for tropical hot spot [which I can't believe] or because you don't get the connection between backradiation and a THS, which I understood to be the case because the Troposphere would warm faster than the surface since it is being heated by a warmer surface, to wit, the surface of the planet which is getting warmed by the aforesaid backradiation; and in addition to but not withstanding that the troposphere whould also rise which would be another aspect of the THS, with the final characteristic being that said THS would occur in the tropics where the warming effect of extra water would be most pronounced, also as a consequence of backradiation?

* Note: These percentages are a rough estimation of the global warming effect of the food system.

This increase partly reverses a period of declining sulfur emissions that had a warming effect of 0.19 W ∕ m2 between 1990 and 2002.»

As the tundra and other regions of permafrost thaw, they will spew more gas into the atmosphere, adding to the warming effect of human emissions.

Similarly, a La Nina cooling effect (the cold tap) can moderate, offset, or even more than offset the warming effect of an increase in atmospheric CO2 (the hot tap) on global (the tub) temperature.

I think research on negative feedbacks is very important, because they could help lessen the warming effect of GHGs.

Some critics argue that future warming may even dry out he upper atmosphere, tempering the warming effect of water vapor.

The net effects of clouds on the nighttime minimum temperature is small except in the winter high latitudes where the greenhouse warming effect of clouds exceeds their solar cooling effect.

«a recent paper by Ramanathan et al (2007) suggests that the warming effect of aerosols may dominate — implying that the sign of the aerosol effect is in question.»

Whilst apparently long known to exert a cooling effect on climate, human - generated aerosols have partly masked the warming effect of increasing greenhouse gases.

Furthermore due to the atmospheric warming effect of soot, it has been cited as «a major factor in triggering extreme weather in eastern India & Bangladesh,» as well as being linked to decreases in rainfall in central India.

Main problem is that if you expect a huge cooling impact of aerosols, the warming effect of CO2 must be increased too and opposite the other way out.

The resulting simulations show the cooling contribution of aerosols offset the ongoing warming effect of increasing greenhouse gases over the mid-twentieth century in that part of the Arctic.

We are told that a warming effect of 1 °C per decade would greatly exceed the capacity of our natural habitat to cope.

It seems from the observational evidence that the potentially cooling effect of a more disturbed solar surface is greater then the warming effect of the very small TSI increase at such times and the oceanic effect is far greater than either.

Compared to those problems (bias and random variation), here is a large unknown: a 2 % increase in cloud cover would prevent the warming effect of increased CO2; will a 7 % increase in water vapor pressure, or 12 % increase in lightning ground strike rate, or a 2 % — 7 % increase in rainfall rate be accompanied by a 2 % increase in cloud cover?

In the absence of this cooling effect, the warming effect of long - lived greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide has prevailed, leading to Arctic sea ice loss, according to the study's authors.

... very few scientists close to the problem, when asked the specific question, would say that they are 95 per cent sure that the effect of clouds is to amplify rather than to reduce the warming effect of increasing carbon dioxide.

As regards a warming of the ocean skin, evaporation is a continuous process caused by temperaure, density and pressure (not just temperature) differentials between water and air so that the rate of evaporation accelerates when a water surface is warmed such as from the warming effect of extra greenhouse gases (especially if the air is dry).

The direct CO2 - fertilisation impact and warming effect of rising atmospheric CO2 have contrasting effects on their dominant functional types (trees and C3 grasses may benefit from rising CO2 but not from warming; C4 grasses may benefit from warming, but not from CO2 - fertilisation), with uncertain, non-linear and rapid changes in ecosystem structure and carbon stocks likely.

Overall the warming effect of conduction would exceed the energy lost by evaporation hence the melting.

So, the Sun heats the ocean, but it heats it more because of the warming effect of the back radiation makes the ocean's cooling less efficient.

I accept the warming effect of AnthroCO2, but don't believe it is demonstrating enough power to keep the globe from natural cooling.

The CO2 - fertilisation and warming effect of rising atmospheric CO2 have generally opposite effects on savanna - and grassland - dominant functional types, with CO2 - fertilisation favouring woody C3 plants (Ainsworth and Long, 2005), and warming favouring C4 herbaceous types (Epstein et al., 2002).

For stratospheric water vapor, the analysis suggests a small negative correlation with the error from the long - run cointegrating relation, but the negative sign is inconsistent with the warming effect of stratospheric water vapor.

The increase of carbon dioxide does not come from the water brought over but from the warming effect of this water on cooler coastal waters.

In - sample simulations indicate that temperature does not rise between the 1940's and 1970's because the cooling effects of sulfur emissions rise slightly faster than the warming effect of greenhouse gases.

A 2010 study found that methane, ground - level ozone, and black carbon (i.e., soot) increase the global warming effect of carbon dioxide by 65 percent.

Because of this, they have also underestimated the sensitivity of the atmosphere to the warming effect of greenhouse gases.

This means that volcanic aerosols have minimal long - term cooling effects and therefore, the warming effect of CO2 has to be much lower than assumed in Hansen's climate models and thus climate sensitivity estimates must be lowered even further.

«However, the warming effect of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide will grow sufficiently to overcome the combined impact of various natural climate cooling factors»

However, the warming effect of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide will grow sufficiently to overcome the combined impact of various natural climate cooling factors, journalists on a telephone news conference were told last week by Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies.

... Schneider became aware that he had overestimated the cooling effect of aerosols, and underestimated the warming effect of CO2 by a factor of about three.

And by 1978, he was convinced that the warming effect of CO2 was the dominant anthropogenic influence on climate.

Unfortunately, reducing the short - lived cooling pollutants such as aerosols would cause a warming effect of similar magnitude, and so CO2 remains the primary pollutant of concern.

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.

Added methane reduces heat radiation to space, amplifying the warming effect of carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels.