Sentences with phrase «about greenhouse warming»

«What To Do about Greenhouse Warming: Look Before You Leap,» Cosmos: A Journal of Emerging Issues.

«What to do about Greenhouse Warming (PDF), Environ.

An asteroid strike, however, told us little about greenhouse warming.

Decades of academic and western liberal sycophants whining about greenhouse warming has not slowed down global CO2 emission one tiny bit.

I have attended multiple times, and the idea that there is disagreement about greenhouse warming among domain experts is just plainly and completely wrong.

Nor are there any debates about greenhouse warming during those meetings — as is easily ascertained by perusing the conference program.

«That should make us that much more worried about greenhouse warming.»

Not exact matches

During his campaign, Trump also called global warming a hoax and promised to quit a global accord to cut greenhouse gas emissions, though he has since softened his stance and said he is keeping an «open mind» about the deal.

After many years of vague talk by governments about fighting global warming, it is encouraging that the debate has finally begun to tackle specific mechanisms to achieve cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.Â

This may have helped offset greenhouse warming from about 1940 to 1980, when global temperatures rose little before rising steeply.

About half of this near - term warming represents a «commitment» to future climate change arising from the inertia of the climate system response to current atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.

Even President George W. Bush, long skeptical about global warming, acknowledged in his 2007 State of the Union address the importance of curbing greenhouse gas emissions.

The researchers detected a «significant regional flux» of methane, a greenhouse gas with about 30 times the warming potential of carbon dioxide over a 100 - year period, coming from an area of gas wells in southwestern Pennsylvania.

In an about - face, the agency agreed that global warming is happening; that humans, by pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, are responsible; and that the American environment is likely to change dramatically over the next century.

So, how exactly, I mean everybody hears about global warming or climate change and rising levels of greenhouse gases — how are the two actually related?

James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City and a vociferous advocate for lowering global greenhouse gas emissions, was chosen for his work modeling Earth's climate, predicting global warming, and warning the world about the consequences.

The Earth's average surface temperature is about 33 °C warmer than it would be without the greenhouse effect.

Kyoto regulates all sources of carbon dioxide as well as other greenhouse gases, but reliable long - term data by country are available only for carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels (which accounts for about two - thirds of the human contribution to global warming).

Whereas the greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere will contribute to warming the planet for many decades to come, Ramanathan says, the good news about warming agents such as black carbon is that they don't linger in the atmosphere for more than a few weeks.

Researchers used data from the two countries because they «are the world's two largest emitters of greenhouse gases and responsible for about one - third of global warming to date,» said Longjian Liu, M.D., Ph.D., lead study author and an associate professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at Drexel University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

In fact, even if the world does cool over the next few years as some predict, it in no way undermines the certainty about long - term warming due to greenhouse gas emissions.

Scientists knew about the warming effects of greenhouse gases, but proponents of global cooling argued that greenhouse warming would be more than offset by Earth's orbital changes.

Most studies so far have focused on how aviation may affect global warming (aircraft comprise about 2 percent of global greenhouse - gas emissions), not vice versa.

7It is particularly ironic that Lomborg would offer such a ridiculously precise estimate of the cost of the impacts of climate change from carbon dioxide emissions, inasmuch as the entire thrust of his books chapter on «global warming» is that practically nothing about the effects of greenhouse gases is known with certainty.

If you don't know anything about how the atmosphere functions, you will of course say, «Look, greenhouse gases are going up, the globe is warming, they must be related.»

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.

But now it appears the energy balance has become slightly lopsided due to a buildup of greenhouse gases, warming our planet overall by about 0.8 degrees in the past 50 years.

Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1 °C per decade would be expected.

RICHLAND, Wash. — As the Arctic warms, tons of carbon locked away in Arctic tundra will be transformed into the powerful greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane, but scientists know little about how that transition takes place.

Many climate scientists, policy experts and environmentalists are concerned about the potential for the incoming administration to limit funding for climate science and roll back both national and international progress toward limiting the greenhouse gases that are warming the planet.

From about 1940 to 1970 the increasing industrialisation following World War II increased pollution in the Northern Hemisphere, contributing to cooling, and increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases dominate the observed warming after the mid-1970s.

On a related note, is a «runaway greenhouse» effect impossible, given the current data and understanding about global warming?

«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.

The observed rapid warming thus gives urgency to discussions about how to slow greenhouse gas emissions (6)».

This is much less than the current «best estimate» of about 3 deg.C, and would imply that there is * not * any unfelt warming «still in the pipeline» from greenhouse gases we've already emitted.

The promise of fusion eliminates the need to burn fossil fuels, accumulate greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, warm the Earth, and worry about nuclear waste — instead, providing clean energy that uses ordinary seawater as a fuel.

Raypierre and also Chris (comment 29) noted that «sceptics» should not just magically forget about or omit the established greenhouse gas physics when trumpeting exotic solar explanations for current warming.

Simple biogeochemical flux modeling suggests that, if the Archean Earth was kept warm by a methane greenhouse, then the evolution of oxygenic photosynthesis could have triggered a Snowball Earth event on a time scale as short as about a million years (Kopp et al., 2005).

You can visit our ecology articles sector, where you can find many information about going green matters such as deforestation, global warming and the greenhouse effect.

As a result, the surface of the Earth receives almost twice as much energy from the atmosphere than it receives from the Sun and the surface is about 30 ° C warmer than it would be without the presence of greenhouse gases.

While talking about global warming and the greenhouse effect, for example, Molly might become fascinated by electrons and neutrons in atoms.

Man made greenhouse gases contribute to the warming but only about 20 %.

Concern about global warming is not based primarily on models, but rather on an understanding of the basic physics of the greenhouse effect and on observed data.

And talk passionately about the basic facts in public: climate changes (expressed as the wacky and destructive weather that has become so common) are caused by the global warming produced by having too much greenhouse gas pollution in the atmosphere.

First, there is still a lot of uncertainty about the extent and pace of warming from a particular rise in concentrations of greenhouse gases, and about how fast and far seas will rise as a result.

Because that's about how much time we have to stop the increase in greenhouse gas emissions and begin steep reductions that will bring emissions to near zero within another ten years at most, if we are to have any hope of avoiding the most catastrophic consequences of global warming.

By the way, I'd just like to mention that I am far happier to be arguing about the comparative benefits of nuclear power, wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, conservation, efficiency, reforestation, organic agriculture, etc. for quickly reducing CO2 emissions and concentrations, than to be engaged in yet another argument with someone who doesn't believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or that human activities are not causing warming, or that the Earth is cooling, or thinks that AGW is a «liberal» conspiracy to destroy capitalism, etc..

There is a lively debate in climate science about how best to compare the importance of these greenhouse gases, and many climatologists deeply immersed in studying human - driven global warming reject the method used by Howarth.

Those arguing that the fossil fuel greenhouse is unstoppable because of hard - wired human short - term greed, scientific illiteracy and failure of technological imagination may have a point, But think about this: Building seawalls, massively air conditioning new habitats inland and dealing with a flood of environmental refugees as the planet warms with take a huge chunk of additional energy in itself.

--- ignorance about atmospheric chemistry really shows here...... snip --- «Moreover, the CO2 that is supposedly causing «catastrophic» warming represents only 0.00035 of all the gases in the atmosphere (1.25 inches out of a 100 - yard football field), and proposals to control this vital plant nutrient ignore a far more critical greenhouse gas: water vapor.»