Sentences with phrase «because human carbon»

Reading just that people might easily be led to believe that because human carbon dioxide emissions are so small, they won't be noticed against the background noise of natural exchanges, when that is patently untrue with CO2 concentrations stable within a few ppm around 280 ppm for the last few thousand years until mass fossil fuel burning started.

Because human carbon dioxide emissions exceed removal rates through natural carbon «sinks,» keeping emission rates the same will not lead to stabilization of carbon dioxide.

Not exact matches

Just because the carbon dating was wrong for a long time doesn't prove that everying is only 6,000 years old, and that dinasours ate humans.

Drivers of Climate Change Atmospheric concentrations of many gases — primarily carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and halocarbons (gases once used widely as refrigerants and spray propellants)-- have increased because of human activities.

That is because human activities going back 150 years have emitted long - lasting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, meaning that sharp reductions in future emissions are needed to avoid harmful climatic impacts.

Rising anthropogenic, or human - caused, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere may have up to twice the impact on coastal estuaries as it does in the oceans because the human - caused CO2 lowers the ecosystem's ability to absorb natural fluctuations of the greenhouse gas, a new study suggests.

This is happening because humans have been producing carbon dioxide (for example, by running cars on gasoline) faster than plants can absorb it, which makes the Earth warmer — and much faster than has happened naturally in the past.

That's a key question because through photosynthesis, land plants currently take up about a quarter of the CO2 humans add to the atmosphere each year, sequestering it as wood and as soil carbon.

The amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the air is now at its highest level in human history, largely because of coal - burning power plants and vehicle emissions.

These are just a few obvious examples, but because the future Fox News pundit was talking about climate change let's consider something that is indisputable: the measured rise of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere is numerically consistent with that predicted from the output of human industrial activity.

We know with certainty that the increase in CO2 concentrations since the industrial revolution is caused by human activities because the isotopes of carbon show that it comes from fossil fuel burning and the clearing of forests.

Sea snails that leap to escape their predators may soon lose their extraordinary jumping ability because of rising human carbon dioxide emissions, a team of international scientist...

Complete restoration of deforested areas is unrealistic, yet 100 GtC carbon drawdown is conceivable because: (1) the human - enhanced atmospheric CO2 level increases carbon uptake by some vegetation and soils, (2) improved agricultural practices can convert agriculture from a CO2 ource into a CO2 sink [174], (3) biomass - burning power plants with CO2 capture and storage can contribute to CO2 drawdown.

«Ocean warming is occurring because of human carbon dioxide emissions, which warm the earth as a whole,» Weber says.

Pregnant women might also find that they attract more mosquitoes than usual — possibly because expectant moms emit more carbon dioxide, the gas that draws mosquitoes toward human and animal food sources.

Because the naked eye can't see carbon dioxide the crew assembles a car with a fancy camera setup; one regular camera that captures what humans can see, and a special camera that uses a color filter to show carbon dioxide.

The Earth's climate is predicted to change over time, in part because human activities are altering the chemical composition of the atmosphere through the buildup of greenhouse gases - primarily carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide.

But because they are released in tiny traces, they currently contribute less than 1 percent of the climate - warming effect from human - generated carbon dioxide.

For decades, we humans apparently (somehow) thought that, because carbon dioxide emissions are invisible to the naked eye, they either don't matter or aren't really there.

Also it is not only re-purposing land currently producing grain but not sequestering carbon, it is also re-purposing land that isn't producing much if any at all, because human abuse has deteriorated it beyond its limits to recover naturally in any reasonable period of time.

Our global climate is changing largely because humans are adding ever - increasing amounts of heat - trapping gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere.

Because, in her own words, «It's tragic that the United States is not leading the effort to do what humans can do to reduce carbon emissions, to respect the ocean, [and] to respect the atmosphere.»

THE PLANET: Rainforests are often called the lungs of the planet because they absorb carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, and produce oxygen upon which all animal life — including human life — depends for survival.

Because the planet does not have a natural system capable of cleaning the atmosphere of excess carbon dioxide in a human - relevant timescale, it makes the development of solutions that hold the potential of removing and sequestering large volumes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere a key priority if we want to avoid climate change.

Climate modeller Ken Caldeira believes that if humans keep emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere at the same rate as today, by 2075 the world's coral reefs will begin to disappear because their rate of natural erosion will surpass their ability to grow fast enough to keep up.

Let's take this from the bottom: human (and all animal) breathing is pretty much carbon neutral because the CO2 it returns to the atmosphere was already there very recently.

While the above analysis yields good results for by tying past climate change to increases in human CO2 emissions, it should be cautioned that the suggested exponential time relation is not suitable for projecting the future over longer time periods, because of possible changes in human population growth rates and absolute limitations on carbon available in remaining fossil fuels.

The enhanced Greenhouse Effect we are now measuring is a human fingerprint because the source of it is the continued emission of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide, produced by industrial activity.

This occurs because transportation in North America produces a substantial amount of black carbon (soot) and ozone (a main ingredient in smog), both of which warm climate, while power generation leads to a large amount of sulfate particles, which cool climate even as they also lead to acid rain and damage human health.

«The additional burden of CO2 added to the atmosphere by human activities... leads to the current «perturbed» global carbon cycle... These perturbations to the natural carbon cycle are the dominant driver of climate change because of their persistent effect on the atmosphere.»

Some scientists have been skeptical of the Paris target for some time — simply because there's only a finite amount of carbon dioxide that humans can put in the air before the earth is committed to a 2 degree Celsius rise in temperature.

This idea, first proposed six years ago and formally endorsed by the International Energy Agency in 2011, has been gaining traction because of the ever - stronger scientific consensus that carbon emissions from human activity is the principal driver of destructive climate change.

Even if we could discriminate between human - originated CO2 and natural CO2 isotopically with reliability I don't see how carbon isotope measurements could prove we have increased atmospheric CO2 by 40 % anyway (or 110ppm) because, problematically, CO2 has a very short atmospheric residence time.

The increase of CO2 is from humans because of the isotope signature of the carbon dioxide.

And in fact when you look at the scientific literature, it's an interesting disconnect because the modelers who study emissions and how to control those emissions are generally much more comfortable setting goals in terms of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas concentrations because that comes more or less directly out of their models and is much more proximate or more closely connected to what humans actually do to screw up the climate in the first place, which is emit these greenhouse gases.

I prefer a carbon tax over legislating cuts in emissions because I believe in the power of markets and human ingenuity to carry out the necessary adaptation with a minimum of cost and disruption.

Conversely, as atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, chlorofluorocarbons, and other absorbing gases continue to increase, in large part owing to human activities, surface temperatures should rise because of the capacity of such gases to trap infrared radiation.

Yet it is highly unlikely a global carbon pricing system will be implemented because negotiators recognize the high cost for negligible benefit for participants until there is a global system with near full participation (all human - caused GHG emissions from all countries).

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 respond.

Yet it is highly unlikely a global carbon pricing system will be implemented because negotiators recognise the high cost for negligible benefit for participants until there is a global system with near full participation (all human - caused GHG emissions from all countries).

It is true that humans have been increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, because of our use of fossil fuels.

«By the way, yes, my plan will reduce the carbon pollution that is eating our planet because climate change is not a hoax,» President Obama said at a campaign rally last week, absurdly portraying the essential gas CO2 exhaled by humans and consumed by plants as a «pollutant» in need of regulation.

And it's happening because of carbon dioxide and global warming: «human use of fossil fuels has been causing the greening of the planet in three separate ways: first, by displacing firewood as a fuel; second, by warming the climate; and third, by raising carbon dioxide levels, which raise plant growth rates.»

Indeed, from my experience from living in Africa, I can say with conviction that we are good people, because of the immeasurable enhancement to human life that carbon now provides.

Although the natural fluxes of carbon dioxide into and out of the atmosphere are still more than ten times larger than the amount that humans put in every year by burning fossil fuels, the human addition matters disproportionately because it unbalances those natural flows.

Humans are the main cause of climate change because were the one who burn fossil fuels that contribute large amount which releases carbon dioxide gas to the atmosphere and clear trees that absorb carbon dioxide, sending heat trapping gases into the atmosphere.

Reductions in some short - lived human - induced emissions that contribute to warming, such as black carbon (soot) and methane, could reduce some of the projected warming over the next couple of decades, because, unlike carbon dioxide, these gases and particles have relatively short atmospheric lifetimes.The amount of warming projected beyond the next few decades is directly linked to the cumulative global emissions of heat - trapping gases and particles.

They keep faking data, because the «Greenhouse» theory, which underlies all climate projections of human impact through carbon emissions has remained unchallenged until now.

Complete restoration of deforested areas is unrealistic, yet 100 GtC carbon drawdown is conceivable because: (1) the human - enhanced atmospheric CO2 level increases carbon uptake by some vegetation and soils, (2) improved agricultural practices can convert agriculture from a CO2 ource into a CO2 sink [174], (3) biomass - burning power plants with CO2 capture and storage can contribute to CO2 drawdown.

The planet is warming because of manmade carbon pollution and other greenhouse gases emitted from human activities like burning fossil fuels.