Sentences with phrase «do about greenhouse gas»

The fundamental conflict is of what (if anything) we should do about greenhouse gas emissions (and other assorted pollutants), not what the weather was like 1000 years ago.

Not exact matches

Climate change is caused by greenhouse gases and that is why we need to do something about them.

But this debate does not challenge the core projections of the IPCC about the impact of greenhouse gas accumulations on temperature, rainfall, and sea - level rise.

«I believe it would be irresponsible to ignore emerging information about the contribution of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to climate change and the potential harm to our environment and health if we do nothing.»

In particular, dealing with greenhouse gas emissions is about to «become as professionalized an industry as IT did in the»80s,» predicts DeSafey.

If you don't do anything about those, then you are in trouble in all the others: more people, means more greenhouse gases, which means more rapid climate change.»

A major test of the world's willingness to phase out greenhouse gases will arrive in December, when nations gather in Paris to try to agree on what to do about climate change.

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.

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.

Concerns about greenhouse gas emissions simply do not have a high priority now in developing nations.

As if we didn't have enough to worry about with all the pollutants and greenhouse gases floating in our atmosphere, now scientists say there are bacteria up there as well.

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.»

«If you know carbon dioxide is a «greenhouse gas» but think it kills the things that live in greenhouses,» Kahan said, «then it's safe to say you don't know much about climate science.»

... The Earth's atmospheric methane concentration has increased by about 150 % since 1750, and it accounts for 20 % of the total radiative forcing from all of the long - lived and globally mixed greenhouse gases (these gases don't include water vapor which is by far the largest component of the greenhouse effect).

«Climate models can easily make assumptions about reductions in future greenhouse gas emissions and project the implications, but they do this with no rational basis for human responses,» Gross said.

They'll do this by collecting data about local trees and analyzing and interpreting data about deforestation and reforestation, which will serve as the example in this lesson of one set of activities that can affect levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

ABM: The whole point about the greenhouse gases in a planetary atmosphere is that they absorb the infrared radiation emitted by the surface, and so Kirchhoff's law does not apply.

Second, if C02 didn't matter («minor greenhouse gas»), there would never have been any reason to care about the «iris effect».

Second, having not succeeded in finding an alternative, they haven't even tried to do what would be logically necessary if they had one, which is to explain how it can be that everything modern science tells us about the interactions of greenhouse gases with energy flow in the atmosphere is wrong.»

My interst in doing this has been to 1) first of all, to investigate if any fears whatsoever are remotely justified for «greenhouse gas» composition changes in the atmosphere 2) to examine how a theory was developed that indicated cause for concern and 3) communicate what I know that can not possibly be true, within the realm of phyical law about claims made in regard to any possible danger associated with greenhouse gases.

Do not worry about the economic impacts of putting the brakes on greenhouse gas emissions.

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..

I understand the logic of starting with the countries with the biggest emissions of greenhouse gases and most capacity to do something about energy choices.

They only think about their own business, they do not care that US's greenhouse gas emission is affecting world poor areas.

A full description of how greenhouse gases operate involves quantum mechanics, about which it has been said that if you claim to understand it then you don't!

Clearly, opposition to doing something about climate change has fallen back to a new position: claims that attempting to limit greenhouse gas emissions would be incredibly costly.

While I am still comfortable with my argument that «human inertia» is the prime explanation for a long response time for doing anything about greenhouse gas emissions, I am very wary of efforts by California and the U.K. to stick their necks out on carbon reductions.

More cheers came from champions of aggressive cuts in greenhouse gases, as did at least one complaint about a mistaken interpretation of how the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change functions.

what DO they say about increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?

I used to think massive investment in basic science might be our only way out, but when I read about the real cost for producing electric cars (ex., greenhouse gases used to make batteries), subsidized solar companies going under because they can not compete with China (which doesn't care about labor needs or pollution), etc., then I wonder about that too.

Even when I interviewed Michael Crichton, who wrote a very passionate novel attacking environmental alarmism, when I talked to him about it he didn't deny that greenhouse gases function.

But, in the mean time the question is what to do about rising sea levels which, even without anthropogenic contributions of greenhouse gases, would rise and fall as they always have.

After hearing the speeches, and knowing what you do about the trajectory of emissions here and overseas, what's your personal sense of the likelihood the world will see a price on greenhouse gas emissions sufficient to shift choices in energy sources or technologies?

It includes a remarkably trenchant, readable explanation from Santer of why such fights — not just the physical kind — have little to do with the scientific basis for concern about the ongoing buildup of greenhouse gases.

Kudos to the group attempting to do something about greenhouse gasses.

Does this conclusion raise questions about the level of confidence in methods used to determine the mix of ocean conditions and other influences, like aerosols and greenhouse gases, that shape climate?

I can count myself as one of those after my article about the greenhouse gas emissions from producing and transporting one bottle of Fiji water all the way from the South Pacific to the US (do a Google search for «Fiji water» and my article is still one of the top links to appear).

While we're very pleased and supportive of the building code... it really is zero net electricity, not net zero energy, because it doesn't take into account gas use in homes and buildings, and gas use makes up about 40 percent of a home's greenhouse gas emissions.

Starting with # 162 --- the» FAILS to comply with the Laws of Physics» posting — it's being used by Mr. Dodds to explain something in his new theory about how greenhouse gases don't....

The Bush administration made clear today that it doesn't intend to do anything about climate change in the final six months in office, announcing that instead of responding to the Supreme Court's mandate last year that the EPA determine the dangers posed to humankind by greenhouse - gas emissions they would simply request further public comment.

The Rudd government does have a hard job to do, following the eleven - year Howard Government which did next to nothing about Australia's shameful greenhouse gas production rates and allowed the Murray - Darling to get into its present pathetic state.

I'd like to stick to facts: * CO2 levels are rising because we emit CO2 (so we can do something about it) * CO2 is a greenhouse gas * CO2 thus contributes to warming of the surface * Other effects compensate or amplify these changes * Those other effects haven't reversed / stopped the warming trend yet

In my earlier posting, I tried to make the distinction that global climate change (all that is changing in the climate system) can be separated into: (1) the global warming component that is driven primarily by the increase in greenhouse gases, and (2) the natural (externally unforced) variability of the climate system consisting of temperature fluctuations about an equilibrium reference point, which therefore do not contribute to the long - term trend.

In the scorching summer of 1988, when global warming first hit headlines in a significant way, presidential candidate George H.W. Bush used a Michigan speech to pledge meaningful action curbing heat - trapping greenhouse gases, saying, «Those who think we are powerless to do anything about the greenhouse effect forget about the White House effect.»

And though, eventually, this drought will end, unless something is done about worldwide human greenhouse gas emissions, these kinds of extreme events will continue to recur and worsen.

As if we didn't have enough to worry about with a depleting ozone and buildup of greenhouse gases, now a recent study shows that there is a new ozone - eating gas on the rise.

Question: What does your study conclude about Climate Sensitivity (e.g., how much warming we expect for a given change in greenhouse gasses)?

But they do not disagree about the underlying chemistry and physics of their enterprise — all of which show that people are warming the planet through their industrial greenhouse - gas emissions.

Maybe you don't know much about the sum of radiative forcings, or findings from paleoclimate, that allow climatologists to calculate that human emissions of greenhouse gases are responsible for 100 + % of recent warming, but that doesn't mean nobody does.

Australia and the USA are culpable on two counts, they are producing more greenhouse gasses than any other nations (considering population sizes) and they are doing less about controlling their emissions than any of the other major greenhouse gas emitting nations.