Sentences with phrase «compare impacts of greenhouse gases»

A global phase - down could avoid 1.1 — 1.7 billion metric tons CO2 equivalent (CO2 equivalent is a measure used to compare impacts of greenhouse gases based on their global warming potential in relation to CO2) of GHG emissions per year by 2030, with cumulative emission reductions of nearly 100 billion metric tons CO2 equivalent by 2050.

Not exact matches

Beyond Kerosene The amount of emissions from aircraft compared with other vehicles is relatively small — roughly 3 percent of total worldwide greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel burning, according to the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)-- nonetheless it has a major impact on the climate.

CO 2 equivalents: The GWP value (Global Warming Potential) of a gas is defined as the cumulative impact on the greenhouse effect of 1 tonne of the gas compared with that of 1 tonne of CO 2 over a specified period of time.

Here's some background on a new, and much discussed, effort (below), which compares the impact of steroid use on home run production to the impact of accumulating greenhouse gases on the frequency of weather extremes:

Comparing the full lifecycle emissions of greenhouse gases by the two fuels from production through combustion in cars, Eric Johnson, editor of Environmental Impact Assessment Review, and Russell Heinen, Vice President of SRI Consulting, found that «biodiesel derived from rapeseed grown on dedicated farmland emits nearly the same amount of greenhouse gas emissions (defined as CO2 equivalents) per km driven as does conventional diesel.»

Report Summary (PDF 168 KB) The RCA developed a summary of the report «Determination of the Impact of Waste Management Activities on Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 2005 Update» (by ICF Consulting for Environment Canada and Natural Resources Canada) showing that the 3Rs Hierarchy is valid by comparing GHG emissions generated by the different waste management options.

«Climate science» as it is used by warmists implies adherence to a set of beliefs: (1) Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations will warm the Earth's surface and atmosphere; (2) Human production of CO2 is producing significant increases in CO2 concentration; (3) The rate of rise of temperature in the 20th and 21st centuries is unprecedented compared to the rates of change of temperature in the previous two millennia and this can only be due to rising greenhouse gas concentrations; (4) The climate of the 19th century was ideal and may be taken as a standard to compare against any current climate; (5) global climate models, while still not perfect, are good enough to indicate that continued use of fossil fuels at projected rates in the 21st century will cause the CO2 concentration to rise to a high level by 2100 (possibly 700 to 900 ppm); (6) The global average temperature under this condition will rise more than 3 °C from the late 19th century ideal; (7) The negative impact on humanity of such a rise will be enormous; (8) The only alternative to such a disaster is to immediately and sharply reduce CO2 emissions (reducing emissions in 2050 by 80 % compared to today's rate) and continue further reductions after 2050; (9) Even with such draconian CO2 reductions, the CO2 concentration is likely to reach at least 450 to 500 ppm by 2100 resulting in significant damage to humanity; (10) Such reductions in CO2 emissions are technically feasible and economically affordable while providing adequate energy to a growing world population that is increasingly industrializing.

The electricity sector's share of greenhouse gas emissions in Ontario in 2012 was only about 9 percent of total emissions, compared to the transportation sector with 34 percent and the industrial sector with 30 percent (Ontario, Auditor General 2015), meaning that further environmental gains in the electricity sector are inherently limited.4 In any event, this impact needs to be compared to other alternatives, such as further enhancing transmission connections and expanding power purchase agreements with neighbouring jurisdictions, in particular Quebec and Manitoba, which have substantial clean hydroelectric resources.

In order to keep temperatures within this range, the IPCCâ $ ™ s Fourth Assessment Report argues that global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions must start declining by 2015.2 For industrialized countries, which are responsible for most of the GHGs already in the atmosphere, this implies implementing drastic cuts immediately; the latest IPCC Report suggests that compared to 1990 levels, industrialized countries might have to reduce their emissions by 25 to 40 per cent by 2020 and 80 to 95 per cent by 2050.3 Thus, there is little time left to avoid the worst impacts of climate changeâ $» ambitious action is required now.

The authors explain how scientists piece together the Earth's «climate history» from tree rings, mud cores, ice cores, and other sources; how this history compares with recent climate patterns; and how greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide - much of it human - made - are impacting climate.

Most of the warming in climate models is not from CO2 directly but from feedback effects, and the evidence for strong positive climate feedback on temperature is very weak (to the point of non-existence) as compared to the evidence of greenhouse gas warming (yes, individual effects like ice cover melting are undeniably positive feedback effects, the question is as to the net impact of all such effects).

A comparison of two conflicting studies analyzing the greenhouse gas impacts of shale gas as compared to coal.

But it was cold this winter and C02 is plant food and only a trace gas and the greenhouse effect has been disproved anyway and even if the greenhouse effect does exist, C02 has negligible impact compared to water vapour and our only source of heat is the sun so it must be the sun, unless it is due to the C02 from volcanoes, but C02 follows warming so it can't be the C02 and the medieval warm period was warmer anyway and all the temperature reconstructions that show this not to be true are produced by corrupt scientists being paid by corrupt governments that have colluded to create an excuse to form a one world unelected social - ist government and even if the scientists are not that corrupt, although the e-mails prove they are, they have still got it wrong as the climate sensitivity is not as high as they think it is because it is basically the planets orbits and cosmic rays so we can say for a fact that the warming that probably does not exist is definatley not due to humans and even if it was the evidence is not sufficient to make drastic changes to the economy and increase taxes so that the politicians and scientists and business leaders get rich and leave us all poor — do they think we are stupid or something?

In terms of greenhouse agents, the main conclusions from the WGI FAR Policymakers Summary are still valid today: (1) «emissions resulting from human activities are substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gases: CO2, CH4, CFCs, N2O»; (2) «some gases are potentially more effective (at greenhouse warming)»; (3) feedbacks between the carbon cycle, ecosystems and atmospheric greenhouse gases in a warmer world will affect CO2 abundances; and (4) GWPs provide a metric for comparing the climatic impact of different greenhouse gases, one that integrates both the radiative influence and biogeochemical cycles.

Journalists and policymakers may want simple ways to compare black carbon's impact to the impact of other greenhouse gases.