Sentences with phrase «about greenhouse gases then»

If all of these people are so concerned about greenhouse gases then why not stop the emissions related to their long CO2 generating journey.

Not exact matches

If simply to support the Kyoto Protocol is to beat our heads against a stone wall, then those who care about the future of the planet need to consider other ways of reducing the emission of greenhouse gases.

If you don't do anything about those, then you are in trouble in all the others: more people, means more greenhouse gases, which means more rapid climate change.»

After all, he reasons, if the Senate passes some type of domestic legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the debate about whether the United States should sign a treaty would then focus on the likely actions of other countries.

Then in 2003, William Ruddiman, a palaeoclimatologist at the University of Virginia, suggested the advent of agriculture 8000 years ago ramped up levels of the greenhouse gas methane in the atmosphere, warming the world by about 0.8 °C.

«If you know carbon dioxide is a «greenhouse gas» but think it kills the things that live in greenhouses,» Kahan said, «then it's safe to say you don't know much about climate science.»

«If we assume an optimistic scenario for greenhouse gas emissions — the RCP 2.6 scenario, [see Fact Box] which would result in a warming of about two degrees Celsius — then we can expect an increase in sea level similar to what we see in this video,» says climate modeller Martin Stendel from the Danish Meteorological Institute, Copenhagen.

If we are talking about clear atmosphere, then no, because the radiation will be ONLY at exactly those frequencies where the greenhouse gases above and below absorb / emit.

To be simplistic about it, if the ratio of aerosols (from all sources) to greenhouse gasses (from all sources) increased, then surely the net forcing would decline.

A full description of how greenhouse gases operate involves quantum mechanics, about which it has been said that if you claim to understand it then you don't!

I used to think massive investment in basic science might be our only way out, but when I read about the real cost for producing electric cars (ex., greenhouse gases used to make batteries), subsidized solar companies going under because they can not compete with China (which doesn't care about labor needs or pollution), etc., then I wonder about that too.

Looking in a textbook about atmospheric physics, meteorology or climate physics it is getting quite clear that atmospheres are more complex then just reducing their thermal structure on the effects of solar radiation and greenhouse gases alone.

To hold the temperature increase to about 1.5 degrees, the globe would need to cut its greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2050, and then have negative emissions, meaning «the sum of all human activities is a net removal of CO2 from the atmosphere,» the study says.

Since then Cumming says he has established that even with the continued expansion of wind farms in South Australia, the AEMO figures show the abatement has risen to only about 4 per cent of the installed capacity, or just more than 1 per cent greenhouse gas abatement.

When Gort first visited in 1951, it spent little effort on climate change issues, focusing on other aspects of our planet instead: Gort returned in 2012 to answer puny human climatologist questions about whether climate change caused particular weather phenomena by making an obvious point: rather than struggle with theoretical analysis, you can simply use your Climate Changeometer to remove all the excess greenhouse gases and aerosols above natural levels and then measure the outcome.

To adjudicate this issue, the court will need to assess the greenhouse gas reductions that the A.B. 1493 Regulations will cause and then compare these reductions to the proffered experts» view about how much this level of reduction will affect the global climate.

«greenhouse» gases in the atmosphere, since, as anybody but a climate change advocate nut knows, heat rises, most will then waft back harmlessly up into space, as the earth, as all functions seek equilibrium and homeostasis (those scientists believing that is a function of physiology and biology or entropy in a closed rather than open and single ended variant and changing input system don't know what they are talking about) then shifts back into balance, which is really what it is doing all along, since

And if the models are good enough to accurately model the effects of geoengineering, then perhaps we should trust what they tell us about addressing global climate disruption, namely that cutting greenhouse gas emissions is the best way to curtail overall climate disruption.

The entire exercise of the IPCC was to make unfounded assumptions about CO2 as a greenhouse gas and then manufacture mechanisms to try and maintain the charade when the evidence consistently contradicts.

If you think about it and if they «are» right about both the causes and the effects (melting ice caps, raising sea levels — e.g. increased ocean surface worldwide, increased surface temperatures on land and at sea and erratic excesses in weather) then the results may well be an eventual drastic swing the other day as we see increases in reflection, evaporation and conversion of «greenhouse» gases back into inert forms!

Would we like it today if the Romans had developed a modern technological society like ours, and their scientists told them that using the atmosphere as a waste dump for greenhouse gases would melt the ice caps, acidify the oceans, overheat the tropics, cause species extinctions, etc, and then they decided to go ahead and do it anyway, just because they were selfish and didn't care about other people?

The first of these concerns the terrestrial and oceanic processes that release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and then absorb them, and the second is a calculation about what a change in carbon dioxide levels really means for average global temperatures.

He added that even if the EPA were forced to regulate greenhouse gases, it would target emissions from coal - fired power plants and then vehicles — which combined account for about half of the nation's global - warming pollution — before requiring smaller operations to apply for new emissions permits.

But if you believe that green building means more than just saving energy, but also about reducing greenhouse gases, then you have to look at how your insulation is made.

If there is good reason to suppose that the paradigm is failing or about to fail, as there is with the current climate paradigm based on GCM models and a perturbed equilibrium model of response to changes in pCO2 or other greenhouse gases, then it becomes incumbent on corporate management to assure that plausible alternatives are investigated to the best of their judgment and ability, including financial.

As mentioned earlier, natural forcings may be lower today than in 1944 and also there was already 0.81 W / m2 of greenhouse gas forcing then, or about a quarter of 2 * CO2.

Wigley states, «If one accounts for the ocean damping effect using either a PD or UD model, and, if one assumes that greenhouse gas forcing is dominant on the century time scale, then the climate sensitivity required to match model predictions is only about 0.4 deg C / wm -2.

es that ratified the 1997 Kyoto Protocol greenhouse gas limiting treaty have reduced their emissions overall since then and have achieved their goals of cutting emissions to about 8 percent below 1990 levels.