Sentences with phrase «because atmospheric levels»

And the reason those 21st century emissions fail to make much of an impression on global temperature is because the atmospheric levels of GHG begin to decline when our emissions are cut (the cut required depending on the gas in question).

But Sideras - Haddad points out that the window for carbon - 14 dating is closing, because atmospheric levels will soon have returned to pre-1950s amounts.

I think it's really important to combine unique different themes for a different set of missions because the atmospheric level design is one of the things that really make this game unique and stand out from the rest.

Not exact matches

«However, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels aren't changing because the Earth has had time to respond via increased silicate - weathering rates.

Our record is also of interest to climate policy developments, because it opens the door to detailed comparisons between past atmospheric CO2 concentrations, global temperatures, and sea levels, which has enormous value to long - term future climate projections.»

Carbon burial is an important metric when it comes to predicting future atmospheric carbon dioxide levels because, once carbon is in the sediments, it has the potential to remain there and not contribute to the greenhouse effect.

Because Mars» atmospheric pressure at ground level is comparable to that of Earth's atmosphere at 100,000 feet — a mere 1.4 percent of Earth's air pressure at sea level — an aircraft that can fly in such conditions will help engineers learn how to design aircraft to roam Martian skies.

Because of those uncertainties, researchers can estimate only that doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide from preindustrial levels would increase global temperature between 1 °C and 5 °C.

When it comes to climate change science, researchers typically use atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from the late 19th century as a guideline, because that's when instrumentation was developed to accurately measure temperatures.

«Modern atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are today equivalent to those about three million years ago, when sea level was at least six meters higher because the ice sheets were greatly reduced.

This is because warmer temperatures and other changes in the atmosphere related to a changing climate, including higher atmospheric levels of methane, spur chemical reactions that lead to ozone.

the Arctic has shown a pattern of strong low - level atmospheric warming over the Arctic Ocean in autumn because of heat loss from the ocean back to the atmosphere....

Complete restoration of deforested areas is unrealistic, yet 100 GtC carbon drawdown is conceivable because: (1) the human - enhanced atmospheric CO2 level increases carbon uptake by some vegetation and soils, (2) improved agricultural practices can convert agriculture from a CO2 ource into a CO2 sink [174], (3) biomass - burning power plants with CO2 capture and storage can contribute to CO2 drawdown.

As summarized by geoscientist James Kasting in his 2010 book «How to Find a Habitable Planet»,» [h] abitable zones around Sun - like (F, G, and Early K) stars should be relatively wide because of the natural feedback between atmospheric CO2 [carbon dioxide] levels and climate — the same feedback loop that kept the Earth habitable early its history.

Addressing these three broad areas of climate change research in reverse order: -(3) The anthropogenic origin of the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels is questioned because the levels of uncertainty of the size of natural fluxes within the carbon cycle are seen as too large for such a conclusion to be made.

The whole issue is that any level above what is often called the «effective radiating level» (say, at ~ 255 K on Earth) should start to cool as atmospheric CO2 increases, since the layers above this height are being shielded more strongly from upwelling radiation... except not quite, because convection distributes heating higher than this level, the stratosphere marks the point where convection gives out and there is high static stability.

(Note that radiative forcing is not necessarily proportional to reduction in atmospheric transparency, because relatively opaque layers in the lower warmer troposphere (water vapor, and for the fractional area they occupy, low level clouds) can reduce atmospheric transparency a lot on their own while only reducing the net upward LW flux above them by a small amount; colder, higher - level clouds will have a bigger effect on the net upward LW flux above them (per fraction of areal coverage), though they will have a smaller effect on the net upward LW flux below them.

Because of atmospheric absorption and emission, IR at any level will not be coming only from the surface, but that is where it will all originate.

a) atmospheric CO2 from human activity is a major bause of observed warming in the 1980's and 1990's, c) that warming is overstated due to a number of factors including solar effects and measurement skew d) the data going back 150 years is of little reliability because it is clustered so heavily in northeast america and western europe rather than being global e) the global climate has been significantly shifting over the last thousand years, over the last ten thousand years, and over the last hundred thousand years; atmospheric CO2 levels did not drive those changes, and some of them were rapid.

Real climate has forever stated that Delta is going to be 3 C with a atmospheric doubling of pre industrial CO2 levels but now lots of people are suggesting that 450 ppmv has a high probability of reaching 2C of warming which because of sinks becomming sources at this temperature level presupposses 3C due to this high level of positive feedback?

And, the IPCC projection is probably too high because it was driven by a collection of climate models which new science indicates produce too much warming given a rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.

Mauna Loa is often used as an example of rising carbon dioxide levels because its the longest, continuous series of directly measured atmospheric CO2.

If the anthropogenic forcing wouldn't keep increasing anymore (because we would manage to suddenly reduce CO2 emission to a level that merely compensates upkeep by sinks, somehow, and the atmospheric concentration would remain constant) then surface temperature would slowly rise until the TOA balance is restored (and then rise some more as slow feedbacks kick in).

Mankind has actually found an efficient way to combat desert and drought: Arid Areas Greening Because of Higher CO2 Levels «Researchers predicted foliage would increase by 5 to 10 percent given the 14 percent increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration during the study period.

This is true because most mainstream scientists have concluded that the world must reduce total global emissions by at the very least 60 to 80 percent below existing levels to stabilize GHG atmospheric concentrations at minimally safe atmospheric GHG concentrations and the United States is a huge emitter both in historical terms and in comparison to current emissions levels of other high emitting nations.

Elevated atmospheric CO2 is associated with decreased plant nitrogen concentration, and therefore decreased protein, in many crops, such as barley, sorghum, and soy.210, 211,212,213 The nutrient content of crops is also projected to decline if soil nitrogen levels are suboptimal, with reduced levels of nutrients such as calcium, iron, zinc, vitamins, and sugars, although this effect is alleviated if sufficient nitrogen is supplied.214 Fourth, farmers are expected to need to use more herbicides and pesticides because of increased growth of pests215, 216,217,218 and weeds219, 220 as well as decreased effectiveness221 and duration222of some of these chemicals (Ch.

In addition, because each national emission reduction target commitment must be understood as an implicit position of the nation on safe ghg atmospheric concentration levels, setting national ghg emissions goals must be set with full knowledge of how any national target will affect the global problem.

Part of problem is that even with current levels of emissions, the inertia of the climate system means that not all of the warming those emissions will cause has happened yet — a certain amount is «in the pipeline» and will only rear its head in the future, because the ocean absorbs some of the heat, delaying the inherent atmospheric warming for decades to centuries.

It is because of this progressive diminution in the rate of uptake that it would take a long time for atmospheric CO2 concentration to fall back to anything close to pre-industrial levels.

This question is designed to expose that refusals of nations to reduce their emissions to their fair share of safe global emissions is implicitly a position on acceptable levels of atmospheric ghg concentrations which is essentially a moral issue because a position on acceptable atmospheric ghg concentrations is a position on who shall be greatly harmed by human - induced climate change.

This question is designed to expose that refusals of nations to reduce their emissions to their fair share of safe global emissions is implicitly a position on acceptable levels of atmospheric ghg concentrations which is essentially a moral issue because a position on acceptable atmospheric ghg concentrations is a position of a nation on who it is willing to kill or greatly harm by their ghg emissions.

The CCSM indicated that ocean waters warmed significantly at higher latitudes because of rising atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse gas.

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).

This is so because any national position on climate change is implicitly a position on adequate global atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration stabilization level and all nations have a duty to prevent atmospheric greenhouse concentrations from exceeding levels that are harmful to others.

Americans increasingly understand that even sending US carbon dioxide emissions back to 1870 levels, as congressional climate bills would do, will not reduce global atmospheric CO2 levels, because emissions from China, India and other nations will rapidly offset our painful reductions.

and, (d) Whether those causing climate change have obligations to act now because if the world waits to act until all uncertainties are resolved it will likely be too late to prevent catastrophic impacts to others and to stabilize greenhouse gas atmospheric concentrations at safe levels?

org, US reductions need to be much greater than average reduction levels required of the entire world as a matter of equity because the United States emissions are among the world's highest in terms of per capita and historical emissions and there is precious little atmospheric space remaining for additional ghg emissions if the world is serious about avoiding dangerous climate change.

Because, as we have demonstrated in the recent article on «equity» and climate change, there are approximately 50 ppm of CO2 equivalent atmospheric space that remain to be allocated among all nations to give the world approximately a 50 % chance of avoiding a 2oC warming and developing nations that have done little to elevate atmospheric CO2 to current levels need a significant portion of the remaining atmospheric space, high emitting developed nations need to reduce their emissions as fast as possible to levels that represent their fair share of the remaining acceptable global budget.

Similarly, if temperatures fall, vegetation spreads and atmospheric CO2 level fall because CO2 is locked up in vegetation.

Complete restoration of deforested areas is unrealistic, yet 100 GtC carbon drawdown is conceivable because: (1) the human - enhanced atmospheric CO2 level increases carbon uptake by some vegetation and soils, (2) improved agricultural practices can convert agriculture from a CO2 ource into a CO2 sink [174], (3) biomass - burning power plants with CO2 capture and storage can contribute to CO2 drawdown.

Since a sustainable future based on the continued extraction of coal, oil and gas in the «business - as - usual mode» will not be possible because of both resource depletion and environmental damages (as caused, e.g., by dangerous sea level rise) we urge our societies to -LSB-...] Reduce the concentrations of warming air pollutants (dark soot, methane, lower atmosphere ozone, and hydrofluorocarbons) by as much as 50 % [and] cut the climate forcers that have short atmospheric lifetimes.

Perhaps to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period, because knowledge of the existence of higher temperatures during the MWP makes it much more difficult for most rational people to believe the planet «s current level of warmth is due to its high atmospheric CO2 concentration.

It is as though EPA, in Ethyl [Corp. v. EPA, 541 F. 2d1, 1976], were defending a rule to ban leaded gasoline because lead is a poison at some unknown dose; cars burning leaded gasoline can emit lead, which has some unknown effect on atmospheric lead concentrations; and banning leaded gasoline would yield some unknown but trivial reduction in atmospheric lead levels, possibly mitigating by some unknown (but at best trivial) degree the unknown adverse effects that may result from atmospheric lead, although it is very, very possible that the ban would accomplish absolutely nothing at all.

The ice cores are popular because they produce measurements that are in the same units of measure as atmospheric CO2 levels.

Even if greenhouse gases never rise beyond their present level, temperatures and sea levels will continue rising for another century or more because of a time lag in the oceans» response to atmospheric temperatures, say researchers.

For convenience scientists often consider a standard forcing, doubled atmospheric CO2, because that is a level of forcing that humans will impose this century if fossil fuel use continues unabated.

«The world reached its current levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases because of countless large and small decisions by governments, companies in different industries, and consumers.

Even more intolerable, these punitive EPA rules will have virtually no effect on atmospheric CO2 levels, because China, India, Germany and other countries will continue to burn coal and other fossil fuels.

The researchers leave open the question of the role of global warming, fuelled by rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide because of increasing fossil fuel combustion.

The Pliocene is a paradox when compared to other Cenozoic warm intervals because global mean temperatures were 2 — 3 °C warmer than present (Dowsett, 2007), despite levels of atmospheric CO2 that were only slightly higher than preindustrial levels (Fedorov et al., 2006).