Sentences with phrase «because changes in concentrations»

Not exact matches

The engineering is even trickier because, unlike the nearly homogeneous water in earth - based oceans, the concentration of ethane and methane can vary dramatically in the Titan oceans and change the liquid's density properties.

TEMPERATURES are rising in France over a proposed change to European safety rules that would ban high concentrations of a chemical in suntan lotions because of suspicions that it may cause cancer.

Because the concentration of scents changes drastically in air polluted environments, this could impact important interactions between plants and insects.

Because the two species have had about the same amount of time to rack up changes to their lipid profiles, the investigators expected them to have roughly the same number of species - specific lipid concentrations, explains computational biologist and study leader Kasia Bozek of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany.

Because plants in turn, in the process of photosynthesis, convert CO2 into oxygen, it is thus sometimes argued that such «co2 fertilization» could potentially provide a strong negative feedback on changing CO2 concentrations.

This flexibility is designed to facilitate a higher concentration of intermittent renewable resources — such as wind and solar — than is currently possible because, by having such flexible gas - fired plants, grid operators can respond to sudden changes in renewable generation caused by variations in wind speed or cloud cover.

Reasoning that, because it fluctuated daily, water vapour was continually recycling itself in and out of the atmosphere, he turned his attention to carbon dioxide, a gas resident for a long time in the atmosphere whose concentration was only (at that time) dramatically changed by major sources such as volcanoes or major drawdowns such as unusual and massive episodes of mineral weathering or the evolution of photosynthetic plants: events that occur on very long, geological timescales.

Our data directly address this hypothesis because we observed a decrease in leptin pulse amplitude between visit CRC1 and visit CRC2 (decreased peak minus nadir plasma leptin concentration and decreased AUC of the change in leptin) without a significant change in integrated circulating leptin concentration (leptin AUC).

The district made the change because it anticipated a significant drop in federal funding during the recession, and needed to prioritize how it spent precious federal dollars on schools with higher concentrations of low - income students.

For his part, Mr. Monckton says there is no need to exploit such events because he and others have exposed fatal weaknesses in the mainstream view that a strong warming effect is due to rising concentrations of carbon dioxide — regardless of the peer - reviewed, Nobel Prize - winning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the conclusions of various national academies of science and 100 years of growing accord on the basics.

Because of this marginal effect, the change in forcing due to a change in carbon dioxide concentration is proportional to the natural logarithm of the fractional change in concentration of this gas.

Because emissions were starting from a small base, they changed the CO2 concentration little in spite of the fact that they were increasing quickly.

Because the drains out of the various bathtubs involved in the climate — atmospheric concentrations, the heat balance of the surface and oceans, ice sheet accumulations, and thermal expansion of the oceans — are small and slow, the emissions we generate in the next few decades will lead to changes that, on any time scale we can contemplate, are irreversible.

Allen and Frame's suggestion that we should «resist the temptation to fix a concentration target early on» because «Once fixed, it may be politically impossible to reduce it» seems hard to reconcile with their faith in «our descendants [having] the sense to adapt their policies to the emerging climate change signal...».

For instance, in Briffa et a 2001 they talk about trees being near altitudinal or longitudinal limits being good candidates because range is limited by temperature (not CO2 concentrations, or precip) and therefore relatively minor changes in temperature cause a relatively larger change in growth rate than trees growing in an area where conditions are more optimum.

Intuitively, it might be expected that the precipitation of calcium carbonate would decrease solution pCO2 and dissolution of calcium carbonate would increase pCO2 because total dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) concentrations and total alkalinity (TA) change in this manner.

Indeed, this is why I have repeatedly said to you: «Any assessment of the causes of the rise of atmospheric CO2 concentration over a period of years requires assessment of the changes that occur each year (because the annual increase to CO2 in the atmosphere is the residual of the seasonal changes to CO2 in the atmosphere).»

But this isn't the grand scheme of things, it's basically a thought experiment because in the grand scheme of things, there's no way to produce an instantaneous step change in the CO2 concentration.

Given that CO2 has such a major role in the natural greenhouse effect, it makes intuitive sense that changes in its concentration because of human activities might significantly enhance the greenhouse effect.

Because soil is such a major player in the carbon cycle, even a small change in the amount of carbon it releases can have a big effect on atmospheric carbon concentrations.

Many opponents of climate change policies argue that countries like the United States should not have to reduce their ghg emissions until China reduces its emissions by comparable amounts because China is now the largest emitter of all nations in terms of total tons, yet such an argument usually ignores the historical responsibility of countries like the United States which the following illustration reveals is more than twice as responsible for current elevated atmospheric ghg concentrations than China is.

Either the climate changed in the past because it is highly sensitive to external forces, in which case we are facing considerable future warming indeed, or its sensitivity to the forces triggered by increasing CO2 concentrations is low, in which case the climate should not have changed in the past.

In a sharp change from its cautious approach in the past, the National Academy of Sciences on Wednesday called for taxes on carbon emissions, a cap - and - trade program for such emissions or some other strong action to curb runaway global warming.Such actions, which would increase the cost of using coal and petroleum — at least in the immediate future — are necessary because «climate change is occurring, the Earth is warming... concentrations of carbon dioxide are increasing, and there are very clear fingerprints that link [those effects] to humans,» said Pamela A. Matson of Stanford University, who chaired one of five panels organized by the academy at the request of Congress to look at the science of climate change and how the nation should responIn a sharp change from its cautious approach in the past, the National Academy of Sciences on Wednesday called for taxes on carbon emissions, a cap - and - trade program for such emissions or some other strong action to curb runaway global warming.Such actions, which would increase the cost of using coal and petroleum — at least in the immediate future — are necessary because «climate change is occurring, the Earth is warming... concentrations of carbon dioxide are increasing, and there are very clear fingerprints that link [those effects] to humans,» said Pamela A. Matson of Stanford University, who chaired one of five panels organized by the academy at the request of Congress to look at the science of climate change and how the nation should responin the past, the National Academy of Sciences on Wednesday called for taxes on carbon emissions, a cap - and - trade program for such emissions or some other strong action to curb runaway global warming.Such actions, which would increase the cost of using coal and petroleum — at least in the immediate future — are necessary because «climate change is occurring, the Earth is warming... concentrations of carbon dioxide are increasing, and there are very clear fingerprints that link [those effects] to humans,» said Pamela A. Matson of Stanford University, who chaired one of five panels organized by the academy at the request of Congress to look at the science of climate change and how the nation should responin the immediate future — are necessary because «climate change is occurring, the Earth is warming... concentrations of carbon dioxide are increasing, and there are very clear fingerprints that link [those effects] to humans,» said Pamela A. Matson of Stanford University, who chaired one of five panels organized by the academy at the request of Congress to look at the science of climate change and how the nation should respond.

Happer is correct to use linear extrapolation because that fit is the only extrapolation which does not represent a prejudice concerning how atmospheric CO2 concentration change is likely to vary in future.

Hence, Happer is correct to use linear extrapolation because that fit is the only extrapolation which does not represent a prejudice concerning how atmospheric CO2 concentration change is likely to vary in future.

Elsewhere on this site there is a graph of overall ocean heat content which is building indicating that while the sst is decreasing slightly the overall ocean is warming, It is likely that this overall ocean warming which has nothing to do with changes to the atmospheric temperature because it is the sea surface and not the deep ocean that is in contact with the atmosphere is what is resulting in the overall rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration which is currenly increasing at 2ppmv / year.

Because there is no experiment that shows that variations in CO2 concentration over a body of water causes a change in heat content as Kenneth likes to put it?

My personal views are: (1) Yes, it is true that increasing greenhouse gas concentrations will tend to warm the Earth's surface and atmosphere; (2) Yes, human production of CO2 is producing significant increases in CO2 concentration; (3) The rates of change of temperature in the previous two millennia are uncertain because proxies have been misapplied by the hockey stick crowd.

However, that is wrong because CO2 is the working fluid of the control system that corrects almost perfectly for any change in its concentration hence no present warming as the other warming effects, solar and polluted clouds, return to near zero.

Based on an extensive literature review, we suggest that (1) climate warming occurs with great uncertainty in the magnitude of the temperature increase; (2) both human activities and natural forces contribute to climate change, but their relative contributions are difficult to quantify; and (3) the dominant role of the increase in the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases (including CO2) in the global warming claimed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is questioned by the scientific communities because of large uncertainties in the mechanisms of natural factors and anthropogenic activities and in the sources of the increased atmospheric CO2 concentrchange, but their relative contributions are difficult to quantify; and (3) the dominant role of the increase in the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases (including CO2) in the global warming claimed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is questioned by the scientific communities because of large uncertainties in the mechanisms of natural factors and anthropogenic activities and in the sources of the increased atmospheric CO2 concentrChange (IPCC) is questioned by the scientific communities because of large uncertainties in the mechanisms of natural factors and anthropogenic activities and in the sources of the increased atmospheric CO2 concentration.

Declining solar insolation as part of a normal eleven - year cycle, and a cyclical change from an El Nino to a La Nina dominate our measure of anthropogenic effects because rapid growth in short - lived sulfur emissions partially offsets rising greenhouse gas concentrations.

If the Earth's greenhouse is caused by the forcing model used by climate scientists, then the GHE should be very stable over the course of the year because overall there is little change to the atmospheric concentration of the greenhouse gases that cause the GHE in the forcing model that they use.

We did not project 35 or 65 years of GDP because over that long of a period, uncertainties attributed to changing exposure concentrations in hazardous areas, changes in building codes and vulnerability, new or updated man - made defenses, and other factors including GDP itself will be significant and can not be predicted over such an extended period.

Because uncertainty is vital to the analysis of climate change and SGE, we incorporate it into our analysis by solving a stochastic version of the DICE model, in which there is uncertainty over either climate sensitivity — the degree to which increases in carbon concentrations cause increases in temperature — or the risks of SGE.

Yet, model projections of future global warming vary, because of differing estimates of population growth, economic activity, greenhouse gas emission rates, changes in atmospheric particulate concentrations and their effects, and also because of uncertainties in climate models.

If the billions that is being wasted in the fools errand (of changing the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere that is increasing because of the warming oceans, http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/compress:12/from:1958/normalise/plot/esrl-co2/compress:12/derivative/normalise/detrend:-0.3) is spent on sewerage systems in some of the capital cities of the developing countries, we could have saved thousands of life now and at the same time helped the environment by preventing sewerage going to the rivers and bringing them back to life with fish and bird life.

The reason I ask is because I'm not sure that changes in CO2 concentration would affect Tmin and Tmax equally everywhere, all the time.

The pH in surface open - ocean waters was regulated largely by changes in CO2 because the carbonate ion concentration (CO3 −) concentration is relatively uniform over the timescales of interest and ocean waters are mostly saturated in Ca2 + (Caldeira and Berner 1999).

Because all 2013 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scenarios — except Representative Concentration Pathway 2.6 (RCP2.6), which leads to the total radiative forcing of greenhouse gases of 2.6 W m − 2 in 2100 — imply that cumulative carbon emission will exceed 1,000 Gt in the twenty - first century, our results suggest that anthropogenic interference will make the initiation of the next ice age impossible over a time period comparable to the duration of previous glacial cycles.»

It is also because there is much more water vapor in the atmosphere than CO2 and, since the amount of climate forcing goes approximately logarithmically with concentration that means the concentration of water vapor has to change by a significantly larger ABSOLUTE amount to produce the same effect.

The IPCC defines climate sensitivity as equilibrium temperature change ΔTλin response to all anthropogenic - era radiativeforcings and consequent «temperature feedbacks» — further changes in TS that occur because TS has already changed in response to a forcing — arising in response to the doubling of pre-industrial CO2 concentration (expected later this century).

Reasoning that, because it fluctuated daily, water vapour was continually recycling itself in and out of the atmosphere, he turned his attention to carbon dioxide, a gas resident for a long time in the atmosphere whose concentration was only (at that time) dramatically changed by major sources such as volcanoes or major drawdowns such as unusual and massive episodes of mineral weathering or the evolution of photosynthetic plants: events that occur on very long, geological timescales.

Settlements are important because they are where most of the world's population live, often in concentrations that imply vulnerabilities to location - specific events and processes and, like industry and certain other sectors of concern, they are distinctive in the presence of physical capital (buildings, infrastructures) that may be slow to change.

If you ever find yourself feeling overwhelmed, notice a change in appetite (increase or decrease), have trouble sleeping (not kid related), feel fatigued, irritable, lack of energy, lack of concentration, withdraw and hopeless, you may benefit from speaking to a therapist because having children can be a huge adjustment.