Sentences with phrase «co2 than climate scientists»

In other words, with more nitrogen available, plant life might be able to absorb more CO2 than climate scientists have been estimating, which means the planet won't warm as much, despite mankind's pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.

In other words, with more nitrogen available, plant life might be able to absorb more CO2 than climate scientists have been estimating, which means the planet won't warm as much, despite mankind's pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.

Not exact matches

No one yet knows the extent to which methane and NF3 will impact global temperatures, but NASA climate scientist Ralph Kahn says one thing is certain: «We know it's more than just CO2 that matters.»

But now we've got significantly more CO2 in the atmosphere than there was even during the warm periods, and climate scientists have some hints that we're actually at the highest levels in perhaps 15 million years.

I'm not even an amateur climate scientist, but my logic tells me that if clouds have a stronger negative feedback in the Arctic, and I know (from news) the Arctic is warming faster than other areas, then it seems «forcing GHGs» (CO2, etc) may have a strong sensitivity than suggested, but this is suppressed by the cloud effect.

Where do you believe that Dr. Curry implies agreement that leading climate scientists are incompetent and should not be working, and that there is a cover - up and that the current warming is caused by an iron sun rather than increased CO2 from human activity?

However, because climate scientists at the time believed a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would cause a larger global heat imbalance than today's estimates, the actual climate sensitivities were approximatly 18 % lower (for example, the «Best» model sensitivity was actually closer to 2.1 °C for doubled CO2).

However, as in the FAR, because climate scientists at the time believed a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would cause a larger global heat imbalance than current estimates, the actual «best estimate» model sensitivity was closer to 2.1 °C for doubled CO2.

«So, imagine you are a climate scientist and climate change ideologue, and want to «take down» the single organization (or individual) that is doing the most damage to the movement (i.e. with the end result of thwarting CO2 emissions / stabilization policy)» And why would you ever imagine that this activity was as or more important than working on evidence supporting your position?

The physical evidence for man - made global warming has never been demonstrated - evidence that many of us trained in the sciences have been waiting.When some scientists suggest that other forces other than man - made CO2 may be involved with the climate, like the Sun, the clouds, the oceans, natural sources of CO2, etc., they are met with scorn and derision.

We can find climate scientists who give lower estimates of climate's sensitivity to CO2 whose arguments are better grounded in science than any number of eco-warriors whose arguments are irrational, emotional, and lack any sense of proportion.

The probability distributions give a most likely estimate of 3 °C of warming for a doubling of CO2, and all pragmatic scientists tend to work on the basis that the climate sensitivity is not drastically more than that.

Climate skeptic scientists have long questioned whether the effects of relatively minor (compared to other CO2 sources and sinks) human - caused emissions of CO2 have more than a minor effect on global temperatures and some have even questioned whether the UN and USEPA have even gotten the causation backwards (i.e., because on balance global temperatures affect atmospheric CO2 levels).

I can't think of anything better than this to test the hypothesis of climate scientists, the notorious ones and others as well, that CAWG can't be due to anything other than CO2 because we can't think of anything else that could cause it.

Idso told the audience that we «should let CO2 rise unrestricted, without government intervention», a very different recommendation than that emanating from the IPCC and the vast majority of the world's climate scientists.

But another development over the last 30 years is that the climate industry, scientists and modelers alike, have become ever more certain that CO2 is the driver of climate, and that «it's worse than we thought.»

You're not a climate scientist, but how can you even play one on TV without knowing that methane is a much more powerful GHG than CO2?

Several climate scientists will attribute more than 100 % of the warming to CO2 — they can due this if the man - made reflective aerosols and ozone are canceling out a portion of the CO2 influence.

However, because climate scientists at the time believed a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would cause a larger global heat imbalance than is currently believed, the actual climate sensitivities were approximatly 18 % lower (for example, the «Best» model sensitivity was actually closer to 2.1 °C for doubled CO2).

After suggesting Climate Scientist Myles Allen presented a misleading graph about CO2, and after receiving an admission from Oceanographer Gary Griggs that ice ages and other violent climate shifts, far greater than today's mild warming, can be caused by natural forcings, Judge Alsup turned to the centrepiece of the conspiracy charge, the «Smoking Gun»Climate Scientist Myles Allen presented a misleading graph about CO2, and after receiving an admission from Oceanographer Gary Griggs that ice ages and other violent climate shifts, far greater than today's mild warming, can be caused by natural forcings, Judge Alsup turned to the centrepiece of the conspiracy charge, the «Smoking Gun»climate shifts, far greater than today's mild warming, can be caused by natural forcings, Judge Alsup turned to the centrepiece of the conspiracy charge, the «Smoking Gun» memo.

There certainly have been times in the past when the Earth was warmer than it is now, but climate scientists project that we're only at the start of a warming response to the CO2 that's already in the air (not to mention all the additional CO2 that will be going into the air in years to come.)

As the former NASA scientist Jim Hansen recently told Rolling Stone: «We are at the point now where if you want to stabilize the Earth's energy balance, which is nominally what you would need to do to stabilize climate, you would need to reduce emissions several percent a year, and you would need to suck 100 gigatons of CO2 out of the atmosphere, which is more than you could get from reforestation and improved agricultural practices.»

While carbon dioxide receives most of the attention in the debate over greenhouse gas emissions, climate scientists warn that methane is about 30 times more potent than CO2 in terms of contributing to a warmer climate.

These scientists have found that, in the absence of any significant CO2 concentration changes or human influence during the Holocene (i.e., the last ~ 10,000 years), the deep oceans naturally warmed by more than 2 °C in a span of just 200 years, which is several times the rate in which they are alleged to have warmed in the last ~ 60 years of the supposedly dominant anthropogenic influence on climate.

Never - the-less, it is generally accepted by most all climate scientists that, in the absence of feedbacks, future increases in atmospheric CO2 will have less effect on world temperature than past increases, and that there is a cap (in this chart around 1.5 degrees C) on the total potential warming.

Of course, I am even more convinced today than I was (after reviewing IPCC SPM 2007) 3 years ago (especially after all the recent revelations of shenanigans and «junk science» by the scientists and bureaucrats involved with IPCC) a) that humans are not destroying our planet with CO2 emissions and b) that we do not have the ability to make changes in our climate by reducing these emissions.