Sentences with phrase «wrt co2»

[Response: A further point here is that the Law Dome data are more extreme wrt the CO2 drop in question, than are other high res.

BAU [wrt CO2](Scenario A) called for an annual increase in anthro emissions of CO2 of 1.5 %.

Hi Anonymouse, I'm afraid it is pretty clear that you don't know what you are talking about wrt CO2, photons and the greenhouse effect, so I will not argue with you about it.

The vostock data shows the opposite trend to the one you suggest and to my mind, direclty imply LOW climate sensitivity wrt co2.

Request for clarification from a retired engineer: when it's said that methane is N times the greenhouse gas that CO2 is, is that purely taking into account their absorption spectra relative to the blackbody emission from the surface, or does it take into account saturation as well, since methane constitutes a much smaller percentage wrt CO2?

Not exact matches

WRT the source of the CO2, Brian has already pointed out the isotopic signature of the CO2, but over and above this, we've produced about 2x as much CO2 as has gone into the atmosphere!

WRT water vapor amplification, I suspect that the basic (radiative only) amplifying effect of water vapor, which is something less than a factor of 2 over the CO2 - only effect of ~ 1.2 C, IIRC, will be close to the same across a range of average surface temperatures.

I happen to agree with Secular Animist and others that we need to cut CO2 and other ghg emissions to as close to zero as quickly as possible at thsi point no matter what further bad news from science comes along wrt said tipping points and feedbacks.

WRT 39, the person's comment was saying that CO2 went up the amount in scenario A, but we got the warming in scenario B. I would think this is relevant (if so... I have not checked out the Hassen stuff yet... so please spoonfeed me the facts!)

3 - Why do we see, wrt our current discussion on CO2, is what appears to be a leveling off in the raw temp since 2000?

WRT to the (alleged) correlation between CO2 and human longevity: correlation is not, as our denialist friends like to stress — on alternate days, anyhow — causation.

The geological evidence is that life (in general) is fairly robust wrt atmospheric CO2 levels, and indeed that from a geological perspective we are close to the bottom end of the range of both CO2 and temperature ranges experienced in Earth history.

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.

Emissions of CO2 from burning fossil fuel is real whereas claims of there being anything more than barely discernable global warming from such emission is observationally challenged wrt objective assessments of the EAS.

I'd suggest that the atribution of cause towards Co2 (wrt temp) has not been sufficiently «proven» in this situation due to the lack of real progress with the theory and the models.

And WRT to the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere, individual molecules of CO2 may have a relatively short residence time due to the carbon cycle but the overall level remains fairly constant and does have a residence time of centuries.

This is what must be done before ascribing relevance to any one small factor such as Man Made CO2 wrt Atmospheric heating.

WRT the application of CDR, I observe that it entails about 3.66 times the tonnage of material as does Carbon Recovery, and does so in the form of liquified CO2 rather than of inert charcoal optimized for use as a soil enhancer.

One is CO2 fertilization and the other is N fertilization... either or both could occur and would increase in general at the same time and amount wrt human fossil fuel burning.

Likewise the ongoing ~ > 16 non-warming controversial critical dialog wrt AWG / CO2 is legend.

> [T] he ongoing ~ > 16 non-warming controversial critical dialog wrt AWG / CO2 is legend.

Since the supposed CO2 level during the MWP was around 280 ppmv and the CO2 level now is about 380 ppmv, your statement wrt sensitivity is nonsense.

Yes, CO2 can accumulate to a saturation point WRT surface temperatures.

Secondly: And some people are upset that there is scepticism wrt the notion that man made emissions of CO2 will cause global warming...