Sentences with phrase «warming of the atmosphere really»

Not exact matches

Just the whole atmosphere of the castle itself felt really cozy and warm.»

Offering a range of facilities, 1st class services and amenities in a warm friendly relaxed atmosphere delivered by professional and dedicated staff this really is the ideal place.

--- ignorance about atmospheric chemistry really shows here...... snip --- «Moreover, the CO2 that is supposedly causing «catastrophic» warming represents only 0.00035 of all the gases in the atmosphere (1.25 inches out of a 100 - yard football field), and proposals to control this vital plant nutrient ignore a far more critical greenhouse gas: water vapor.»

In both cases, if you really care about cutting risks of the kind of human - driven warming that could last centuries, if not millennia, you also would do well to support research in technologies or practices that could suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere (See Cao and Caldeira's paper for relevant background).

Yes, most of us really do understand the basic physics that dictate a doubling of CO2 will warm the atmosphere 1 degree C. Please accept that beyond the fundamental laws however, there is a bunch more we are not as sure about.

# 92 Spencer el al 2007 paper doesn't really support the precise mechanism proposed by Lindzen for Iris effect, but more simply observes a strong TOA negative correction associated with warming events at 20 ° S - 20 ° N (that is: in the 2000 - 2005 period of observation, the most significative warming episodes of the surface + low troposphere — 40 days or more — leads to a negative SW+LW cloud forcing at the top of the atmosphere).

The third finding is the resolution of an inconsistency that called into question whether the atmosphere was really warming.

If Mr. Rose really wants to improve his reporting and do a general service of advancing a true understanding of the issue of anthropogenic climate change, he needs to do a comprehensive article about Earth's energy budget, and state quite clearly all the different spheres (all layers of the atmosphere, hyrdosphere, crysosphere, and biosphere) in which the signal of anthropogenic warming is both modeled as impacting and then talk about what is data is actually saying in terms of Earth's energy imbalance in all these spheres.

But the area where the Met Office really contributes is, given emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, how much stays in the atmosphere and leads to warming?

Well if Jelbring's conclusions are correct that the adiabatic lapse rate is stable and it probably has a 50 % chance of being so (or 49 % if you really want to argue it) then gravity causes the surface all by itself to be warmer than it would be without an atmosphere.

This sounds wild, but really no wilder than warming by a gas (CO2) that makes up a near trivial portion of the atmosphere.

You should really say «the troposphere warms because of added greenhouse gases» rather than just «the atmosphere.»

I don't really need to read and understand what you've said in your paper because anyone who is suggesting that the greenhouse effect is negligible and that some magical process in the atmosphere is causing the surface to be 33K warmer that it would be in the absence of greenhouse gases, doesn't understand the greenhouse effect.

Be aware that the «global temperature» measure is a surface or near - surface measure in the atmosphere, and even if it was possible to measure it very accurately, it is really only a proxy for global warming of little use over periods up to a decade or so.

The really cold Arctic air is only in the lowest regions of the atmosphere (below say 5,000 feet), which GISS would fully see, while the satellite also sees air above 5,000 feet and averages that «warmer» upper air with the cold surface air.

Admitting that we are emitting Gt's of CO2 into the atmosphere and thus affecting the atmospheric concentration of CO2 doesn't mean that you also have to agree with the IPCC on the climate sensitivity to CO2, that CO2 is the primary cause of warming in the late 20th century, or that warming of a few degrees C will result in really bad things happening.

whereas this process will sequester more CO2 from our atmosphere, this is a very slow process relative to anthropogenically accelerated global warming and I don't really believe it should be used in the context of this debate.

Given there is much more water vapour in the lower levels of the atmosphere, the study really found that there was a decline in overall global relative humidity when global warming theory suggests it should stay more - or-less stable.

While modest warming of the tropical East Pacific did occur, the atmosphere never really responded to the oceanic changes in a meaningful way, and model forecasts by early summer quickly fell toward a borderline event, at best.

So with respect to the surface and the atmosphere, the atmosphere doesn't heat the surface, or really make it warmer, all it does is slow radiative heat loss, instead of losing 356W / m ^ 2, with a 333W / m ^ 2 atmosphere all it really loses is 23W / m ^ 2.

It's that second part which really as implications for reducing warming from soot.Effects of Black Carbon Pollution Stop Quickly Once Source is Removed The good news about black carbon and global warming is this: Unlike greenhouse gases which can remain in the atmosphere for decades or even centuries, black carbon particles come out of the atmosphere very quickly once the source of pollution is removed.

-- First we increase the greenhouse gases — then that causes warming in the atmosphere and oceans — as the oceans warm up, they evaporate more H2O — more moisture in the air means more precipitation (rain, snow)-- the southern hemisphere is essentially lots of water and a really big ice cube in the middle called Antarctica — land ice is different than sea ice — climate models indicated that more snowfall would cause increases in the frozen H2O — climate models indicated that there would be initial increases in sea ice extent — observations confirm the indications and expectations that precipitation is increasing, calving rates are accelerating and sea ice extent is increasing.

Everywhere I look when skeptics pop up they are claiming of conspiracies around temperature indices (1), debating whether CO2 really has a warming effect (some on the lines of «well it does in the labratory, but it the atmosphere that isn't proven»)(2), doing a Salby and claiming that CO2 increases are not man - made (3) and numerous other arguments that the planet wont warm (4).

Do you really believe that IR coming from a colder body (the atmosphere is increasing the temperature of a warmer body (the Earth) by 33K?