Sentences with phrase «as a greenhouse gas simply»

Not exact matches

The reason using existing cropland for biofuels tends not to show up as yielding large reductions in greenhouse gas emissions is simply because those croplands are already absorbing large quantities of carbon.

Because most of Singapore's petroleum products are not consumed domestically, greenhouse gas emissions generated by the oil refining industry should not be simply counted as Singapore's responsibilities, said Edwin Khew, chairman of the Sustainable Energy Association of Singapore.

As soon as his paper was published (1861) in the Proceedings of the Royal Society, he put out a press release for the London newspapers explaining that this result implied that all past climate changes were now understood and all future climate changes could be predicted simply from a knowledge of the concentrations of these «greenhouse» gases.As soon as his paper was published (1861) in the Proceedings of the Royal Society, he put out a press release for the London newspapers explaining that this result implied that all past climate changes were now understood and all future climate changes could be predicted simply from a knowledge of the concentrations of these «greenhouse» gases.as his paper was published (1861) in the Proceedings of the Royal Society, he put out a press release for the London newspapers explaining that this result implied that all past climate changes were now understood and all future climate changes could be predicted simply from a knowledge of the concentrations of these «greenhouse» gases...

It is these tendencies, in part demanded by the governments that created the panel in 1988, that have sometimes offered fodder to critics, some of whom simply want to improve the assessments while others appear eager to undercut the credibility of the enterprise as a strategy for delaying action on greenhouse gases.

For the upper - atmosphere cooling, I simply remark that infrared coming up from below is blocked more, as more greenhouse gases are added, so of course it's cooler above the blocking.

Darren — The misunderstanding you have with my analogy is that you can not simply peel off the greenhouse gases as you can with your clothing; however, you are correct that it does have to come off through reduction in emissions.

I am worried that the more intelligent among us will simply have to wake up to the fact that international climate science and the issue of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions will not be taken as seriously as every intelligent person quickly realize it should be.

AGW, also called «The Enhanced Greenhouse Effect» is simply the expectation from observation and theory that adding more of these gases will increase the «restiction» and that the Earth will warm as a consequence.

Although water vapour is a greenhouse gas it had no warming effect at the surface where the vapour simply acquired the same temperature as the surrounding air molecules.

So if, as Wallace - Wells says, «the alternative [to stopping climate change] is simply unimaginable,» then there is simply no alternative to cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

The 57 - year - old, who describes himself as a classical ecologist and businessman, says he is simply mimicking Mother Nature by giving greenhouse gas - sucking seas and trees a leg up.

Recall that Michaels and Knappenberger argued that climate models have greatly over-predicted the warming we've actually seen in the temperature data, and that the climate is simply not as sensitive to greenhouse gas emissions as the IPCC believes.

argued that climate models have greatly over-predicted the warming we've actually seen in the temperature data, and that the climate is simply not as sensitive to greenhouse gas emissions as the IPCC believes.

As far as the original post goes, if you simply look at calculated forcings from known sources (Volcanic Aerosol, Solar Irradience and Greenhouse gases) you can replicate the last 150 years of temperature records surprisingly well; take any of these factors out and you can noAs far as the original post goes, if you simply look at calculated forcings from known sources (Volcanic Aerosol, Solar Irradience and Greenhouse gases) you can replicate the last 150 years of temperature records surprisingly well; take any of these factors out and you can noas the original post goes, if you simply look at calculated forcings from known sources (Volcanic Aerosol, Solar Irradience and Greenhouse gases) you can replicate the last 150 years of temperature records surprisingly well; take any of these factors out and you can not.

Canada will not solve its own greenhouse gas conundrum — let alone the world's — simply by deciding whether or not to continue to extract 2.4 million barrels of oil per day from Alberta's oil sands, whether to increase that amount by another million or two or whether to reduce it to nothing as fast as possible.

There are simply too many unknowns involved in the future evolution of climate, such as how much humans will curb their future greenhouse gas emissions.

As hinted at above, ethical responsibility with regard to taking action on climate is not discharged simply by committing to a putative or first - offered greenhouse gas emissions reduction plan, but effectively seeing through the execution of that plan.

«Fildes argues that policymakers need to be responding to a wide range of other climate forcings — not simply greenhouse gases — and considering their effects regionally as well as globally.

It is simply that there is not any REAL reason to worry a over non-existent, non-actual, non-possible «GREENHOUSE effect» induced «climate change», as is the «short answer»... and with the additional «appendix» that those «alternate» sources (so often mentioned) of «electricity generation» also only work «in opinion» and do NOT present REAL alternatives to Gas and Coal (as of NOW).

Instead, the aim of our Science paper was to illustrate as clearly and as simply as possible the basic operating principles of the terrestrial greenhouse effect in terms of the sustaining radiative forcing that is provided by the non-condensing greenhouse gases, which is further augmented by the feedback response of water vapor and clouds.

Climate hard - liners in developing countries have long argued that keeping global temperatures to a 2 degree C rise over pre-industrial levels was simply too hot, and would risk unleashing many of the worst destabilizing impacts of global warming — including perhaps the triggering of cascading effects and warming amplifications within nature, such as the melting of Arctic permafrost, that could release more greenhouse gases and push temperatures even higher.

Simply put, without greenhouse gases, or the greenhouse effect, Earth would be a frozen planet, incapable of sustaining life as we know it.

Together, these lines of evidence provide a conceptual and scientific backing to the theory of climate change caused by human greenhouse gas emissions that is simply absent for alternative theories, such as that there is no change or that the change is caused by something different.

It is simply that after accounting as best one can for the influence of the sun you still can't match the observed climate over the past ~ 30 - 50 years without including the effects of additional greenhouse gas forcing.

This is because some of the gases absorb and emit radiation at the same frequencies as others, so that the total greenhouse effect is not simply the sum of the influence of each gas.