Reading just that people might easily be led to believe that
because human carbon dioxide emissions are so small, they won't be noticed against the background noise of natural exchanges, when that is patently untrue with CO2 concentrations stable within a few ppm around 280 ppm for the last few thousand years until mass fossil fuel burning started.
Because human carbon dioxide emissions exceed removal rates through natural carbon «sinks,» keeping emission rates the same will not lead to stabilization of carbon dioxide.
Not exact matches
Just
because the
carbon dating was wrong for a long time doesn't prove that everying is only 6,000 years old, and that dinasours ate
humans.
Drivers of Climate Change Atmospheric concentrations of many gases — primarily
carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and halocarbons (gases once used widely as refrigerants and spray propellants)-- have increased
because of
human activities.
That is
because human activities going back 150 years have emitted long - lasting
carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, meaning that sharp reductions in future emissions are needed to avoid harmful climatic impacts.
Rising anthropogenic, or
human - caused,
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere may have up to twice the impact on coastal estuaries as it does in the oceans
because the
human - caused CO2 lowers the ecosystem's ability to absorb natural fluctuations of the greenhouse gas, a new study suggests.
This is happening
because humans have been producing
carbon dioxide (for example, by running cars on gasoline) faster than plants can absorb it, which makes the Earth warmer — and much faster than has happened naturally in the past.
That's a key question
because through photosynthesis, land plants currently take up about a quarter of the CO2
humans add to the atmosphere each year, sequestering it as wood and as soil
carbon.
The amount of
carbon dioxide (CO2) in the air is now at its highest level in
human history, largely
because of coal - burning power plants and vehicle emissions.
These are just a few obvious examples, but
because the future Fox News pundit was talking about climate change let's consider something that is indisputable: the measured rise of
carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere is numerically consistent with that predicted from the output of
human industrial activity.
We know with certainty that the increase in CO2 concentrations since the industrial revolution is caused by
human activities
because the isotopes of
carbon show that it comes from fossil fuel burning and the clearing of forests.
Sea snails that leap to escape their predators may soon lose their extraordinary jumping ability
because of rising
human carbon dioxide emissions, a team of international scientist...
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.
«Ocean warming is occurring
because of
human carbon dioxide emissions, which warm the earth as a whole,» Weber says.
Pregnant women might also find that they attract more mosquitoes than usual — possibly
because expectant moms emit more
carbon dioxide, the gas that draws mosquitoes toward
human and animal food sources.
Because the naked eye can't see
carbon dioxide the crew assembles a car with a fancy camera setup; one regular camera that captures what
humans can see, and a special camera that uses a color filter to show
carbon dioxide.
The Earth's climate is predicted to change over time, in part
because human activities are altering the chemical composition of the atmosphere through the buildup of greenhouse gases - primarily
carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide.
But
because they are released in tiny traces, they currently contribute less than 1 percent of the climate - warming effect from
human - generated
carbon dioxide.
For decades, we
humans apparently (somehow) thought that,
because carbon dioxide emissions are invisible to the naked eye, they either don't matter or aren't really there.
Also it is not only re-purposing land currently producing grain but not sequestering
carbon, it is also re-purposing land that isn't producing much if any at all,
because human abuse has deteriorated it beyond its limits to recover naturally in any reasonable period of time.
Our global climate is changing largely
because humans are adding ever - increasing amounts of heat - trapping gases such as
carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere.
Because, in her own words, «It's tragic that the United States is not leading the effort to do what
humans can do to reduce
carbon emissions, to respect the ocean, [and] to respect the atmosphere.»
THE PLANET: Rainforests are often called the lungs of the planet
because they absorb
carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, and produce oxygen upon which all animal life — including
human life — depends for survival.
Because the planet does not have a natural system capable of cleaning the atmosphere of excess
carbon dioxide in a
human - relevant timescale, it makes the development of solutions that hold the potential of removing and sequestering large volumes of
carbon dioxide from the atmosphere a key priority if we want to avoid climate change.
Climate modeller Ken Caldeira believes that if
humans keep emitting
carbon dioxide into the atmosphere at the same rate as today, by 2075 the world's coral reefs will begin to disappear
because their rate of natural erosion will surpass their ability to grow fast enough to keep up.
Let's take this from the bottom:
human (and all animal) breathing is pretty much
carbon neutral
because the CO2 it returns to the atmosphere was already there very recently.
While the above analysis yields good results for by tying past climate change to increases in
human CO2 emissions, it should be cautioned that the suggested exponential time relation is not suitable for projecting the future over longer time periods,
because of possible changes in
human population growth rates and absolute limitations on
carbon available in remaining fossil fuels.
The enhanced Greenhouse Effect we are now measuring is a
human fingerprint
because the source of it is the continued emission of greenhouse gases, primarily
carbon dioxide, produced by industrial activity.
This occurs
because transportation in North America produces a substantial amount of black
carbon (soot) and ozone (a main ingredient in smog), both of which warm climate, while power generation leads to a large amount of sulfate particles, which cool climate even as they also lead to acid rain and damage
human health.
«The additional burden of CO2 added to the atmosphere by
human activities... leads to the current «perturbed» global
carbon cycle... These perturbations to the natural
carbon cycle are the dominant driver of climate change
because of their persistent effect on the atmosphere.»
Some scientists have been skeptical of the Paris target for some time — simply
because there's only a finite amount of
carbon dioxide that
humans can put in the air before the earth is committed to a 2 degree Celsius rise in temperature.
This idea, first proposed six years ago and formally endorsed by the International Energy Agency in 2011, has been gaining traction
because of the ever - stronger scientific consensus that
carbon emissions from
human activity is the principal driver of destructive climate change.
Even if we could discriminate between
human - originated CO2 and natural CO2 isotopically with reliability I don't see how
carbon isotope measurements could prove we have increased atmospheric CO2 by 40 % anyway (or 110ppm)
because, problematically, CO2 has a very short atmospheric residence time.
The increase of CO2 is from
humans because of the isotope signature of the
carbon dioxide.
And in fact when you look at the scientific literature, it's an interesting disconnect
because the modelers who study emissions and how to control those emissions are generally much more comfortable setting goals in terms of
carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas concentrations
because that comes more or less directly out of their models and is much more proximate or more closely connected to what
humans actually do to screw up the climate in the first place, which is emit these greenhouse gases.
I prefer a
carbon tax over legislating cuts in emissions
because I believe in the power of markets and
human ingenuity to carry out the necessary adaptation with a minimum of cost and disruption.
Conversely, as atmospheric concentrations of
carbon dioxide, methane, chlorofluorocarbons, and other absorbing gases continue to increase, in large part owing to
human activities, surface temperatures should rise
because of the capacity of such gases to trap infrared radiation.
Yet it is highly unlikely a global
carbon pricing system will be implemented
because negotiators recognize the high cost for negligible benefit for participants until there is a global system with near full participation (all
human - caused GHG emissions from all countries).
In a sharp change from its cautious approach in the past, the National Academy of Sciences on Wednesday called for taxes on
carbon emissions, a cap - and - trade program for such emissions or some other strong action to curb runaway global warming.Such actions, which would increase the cost of using coal and petroleum — at least in the immediate future — are necessary
because «climate change is occurring, the Earth is warming... concentrations of
carbon dioxide are increasing, and there are very clear fingerprints that link [those effects] to
humans,» said Pamela A. Matson of Stanford University, who chaired one of five panels organized by the academy at the request of Congress to look at the science of climate change and how the nation should respond.
Yet it is highly unlikely a global
carbon pricing system will be implemented
because negotiators recognise the high cost for negligible benefit for participants until there is a global system with near full participation (all
human - caused GHG emissions from all countries).
It is true that
humans have been increasing the concentration of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere,
because of our use of fossil fuels.
«By the way, yes, my plan will reduce the
carbon pollution that is eating our planet
because climate change is not a hoax,» President Obama said at a campaign rally last week, absurdly portraying the essential gas CO2 exhaled by
humans and consumed by plants as a «pollutant» in need of regulation.
And it's happening
because of
carbon dioxide and global warming: «
human use of fossil fuels has been causing the greening of the planet in three separate ways: first, by displacing firewood as a fuel; second, by warming the climate; and third, by raising
carbon dioxide levels, which raise plant growth rates.»
Indeed, from my experience from living in Africa, I can say with conviction that we are good people,
because of the immeasurable enhancement to
human life that
carbon now provides.
Although the natural fluxes of
carbon dioxide into and out of the atmosphere are still more than ten times larger than the amount that
humans put in every year by burning fossil fuels, the
human addition matters disproportionately
because it unbalances those natural flows.
Humans are the main cause of climate change
because were the one who burn fossil fuels that contribute large amount which releases
carbon dioxide gas to the atmosphere and clear trees that absorb
carbon dioxide, sending heat trapping gases into the atmosphere.
Reductions in some short - lived
human - induced emissions that contribute to warming, such as black
carbon (soot) and methane, could reduce some of the projected warming over the next couple of decades,
because, unlike
carbon dioxide, these gases and particles have relatively short atmospheric lifetimes.The amount of warming projected beyond the next few decades is directly linked to the cumulative global emissions of heat - trapping gases and particles.
They keep faking data,
because the «Greenhouse» theory, which underlies all climate projections of
human impact through
carbon emissions has remained unchallenged until now.
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.
The planet is warming
because of manmade
carbon pollution and other greenhouse gases emitted from
human activities like burning fossil fuels.