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
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.
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.
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...
«Ocean warming is occurring
because of
human carbon dioxide emissions, which warm the earth as a whole,» Weber says.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
NGOs argue for reductions to
carbon dioxide emissions from
human activities (i.e. anthropogenic CO2
emissions)
because it is assumed that these
emissions are causing the recent rise of
carbon dioxide in the air.
The main evidence for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW), the principal alleged adverse effect of
human emissions of
carbon dioxide (CO2), is climate models built by CAGW supporters in a field where models with real predictive power do not exist and can not be built with any demonstrable accuracy beyond a week or two
because climate and weather are coupled non-linear chaotic systems.