Sentences with phrase «for human emissions»

Thus in the earlier period, when emissions were less than 2 GtC / year, it may have been that nature was a contributor to the increase, or a sink for all human emissions, but in average a sink.

According to you, then, CO2 would not be increasing in the atmosphere if it weren't for human emissions as nature is normally in balance and natural CO2 is absorbed / emitted at roughly the same rate.

If I used stock market prices as a proxy for human emissions, found it fit well, then calculated a sensitivity and said, «The planet will warm 3.1 degrees every time stock market prices double,» I'd be laughed at.

They all agree that there's a tendency for human emissions to heat the planet, but whether that's responsible for all the heating is an open question.

Nature indeed will react on disturbances in the same way for temperature as for human emissions.

So it is clear that we are not talking about a simple system that is in «equilibrium» except for the human emissions.

Not exact matches

The Trudeau government believes accepting the scientific evidence for human - caused climate change and reducing greenhouse gas emissions are critical to gaining social licence for pipelines, Carr says.

Exxon has argued against all the other shareholder proposals as well, including a «policy to explicitly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity»; a policy articulating Exxon's «respect for and commitment to the human right to water»; «a report discussing possible long term risks to the company's finances and operations posed by the environmental, social and economic challenges associated with the oil sands»; a report of «known and potential environmental impacts» and «policy options» to address the impacts of the company's «fracturing operations»; a report of recommendations on how Exxon can become an «environmentally sustainable energy company»; and adoption of «quantitative goals... for reducing total greenhouse gas emissions.»

Rick Perry, the U.S. Secretary of Energy who infamously once said he would do away with the Department of Energy, told CNBC that he didn't believe that carbon dioxide emissions from humans are the main cause for climate change.

As well as explaining that the production of meat — on its journey from farm to fork — is responsible for 15 per cent of the planet's harmful greenhouse gas emissions, it underlines that raising equivalent amounts of grain or vegetables for human consumption uses far less land, water and resources.

Nearly a quarter of all food calories produced for humans are never consumed, resulting in about $ 1 trillion in annual economic losses, significant greenhouse gas emissions and inefficient use of water, land and other resources.

The way we currently produce food around the world contributes up to 20 - 30 % of the world's greenhouse gas emissions and accounts for 70 % of all human water use.

Yeo, for the record, is sure that the increase in carbon emissions is due to us pesky humans, but accepts «there may be other long - term cycles at work».

The findings are the first to note increased greenhouse gas emissions due to antibiotic use in cattle; a recent study suggests that methane emissions from cud - chewing livestock worldwide, including cows, account for about 4 % of the greenhouse gas emissions related to human activity.

Bacteria release N2O when they consume the nitrogen in soil or water, but human activity now accounts for nearly 40 per cent of N2O emissions (Science, DOI: 10.1126 / science.1176985).

If similar results are found in other urban areas, then unknown urban sources could account for 7 to 15 per cent of humans» global emissions of the gas, the researchers calculate — far more than was thought (Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1029 / 2009gl039825).

«Despite some reductions in air pollutant emissions in Europe and North America, human health impacts from ozone are still a cause for concern across the world and are rising in parts of East Asia, with the potential for serious health effects on their populations,» said Zo?

Altogether, the unreported and underreported sources account for about 12 percent of all human - made emissions of sulfur dioxide — a discrepancy that can have a large impact on regional air quality, said McLinden.

The request also calls for cuts in international climate programs such as SilvaCarbon, a forest assistance program supported by the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Forest Service, and they are all links in a chain that is working toward providing effective measures of human - caused carbon dioxide emissions.

It should come as no surprise that an archival search of the U.S. Patent Office yields an embarrassment of riches regarding various contraptions for guarding against self - abuse (masturbation) and nocturnal seminal emissions (wet dreams) in human males.

Other scientists have criticized the planetary boundaries as too generous (for example, allowing too much human appropriation of freshwater flows) or employing the wrong metric (atmospheric concentrations of CO2 rather than cumulative emissions of greenhouse gases).

Cooney himself made 294 edits to the administration's 364 - page Strategic Plan for the U.S. Climate Change Science Program posted July 24, 2003, «to exaggerate or emphasize scientific uncertainties or to deemphasize or diminish the importance of the human role in global warming,» and Cooney and the CEQ played a role in eliminating climate change sections in the EPA's draft Report on the Environment as well as its National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report.

The authors conclude that «the data strongly support the view that human emissions play an important role in climate change and represent a key test for climate change theory.»

Human emissions of the potentially harmful trace metal vanadium into Earth's atmosphere have spiked sharply since the start of the 21st century due in large part to industry's growing use of heavy oils, tar sands, bitumen and petroleum coke for energy, a new Duke University study finds.

Today, with deforestation accounting for a substantial portion of human - induced carbon emissions, the researchers describe the payment program they studied as «a cost - effective way to avert deforestation in developing countries — and hence a powerful tool to mitigate climate change.»

Currently, agriculture accounts for 10 - 12 percent of the total human - caused greenhouse gas emissions globally.

«Many impacts respond directly to changes in global temperature, regardless of the sensitivity of the planet to human emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases,» says geoscientist Katharine Hayhoe of Texas Tech University in Lubbock, a co-author of the report, excluding effects such as ocean acidification and CO2 as a fertilizer for plants.

The discovery won't mean much for climate change: The process occurs over millions of years, and the amounts involved are small compared with human - driven emissions.

The study supports calls for improved monitoring of wetlands and human changes to those ecosystems — a timely topic as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change prepares to examine land use impacts on greenhouse gas emissions, says Prof. Merritt Turetsky, Department of Integrative Biology.

Global warming became big news for the first time during the hot summer of 1988 when now - retired NASA climate scientist James Hansen testified before Congress that the trend was not part of natural climate variation, but rather the result of emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses from human activities.

The same process could also be important in paddy fields, for example, which account for around 20 percent of human - related emissions of methane.

It was clear that climate change is an energy problem — burning fossil fuels to generate energy accounts for 74 per cent of human - made greenhouse gas emissions — but I could see that it was very difficult to change the energy industry from the outside and very little was happening on the inside.

The authors of the new study, Steven Smith and Andrew Mizrahi, both climate analysts at the Joint Global Change Research Institute in College Park, Maryland, argue that for one thing, the earlier work assumes that dramatic cuts in methane and soot emissions are feasible based on shifting technologies and changes in human behavior.

Humans, for example, only dumped chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) into the atmosphere for a few decades before realizing thedamage to the ozone and reducing CFC emissions.

«If we were to stop all human - made emissions immediately, SLCF concentrations in the atmosphere would decrease quite rapidly to zero, but not so for CO2 concentrations.»

The main driver for Arctic sea ice's disappearing act is the rising ocean and air temperatures driven by human greenhouse gas emissions.

The authors of this new research paper analysed data and models from the USEPA's updated global non-CO2 GHG mitigation assessment to investigate the potential for GHG reductions from agricultural emissions from seven regions globally, offsetting costs against social benefit of GHG mitigation (e.g. human health, flood risk and energy costs).

Fake paper fools global warming naysayers The man - made - global - warming - is - a-hoax crowd latched onto a study this week in the Journal of Geoclimatic Studies by researchers at the University of Arizona's Department of Climatology, who reported that soil bacteria around the Atlantic and Pacific oceans belch more than 300 times the carbon dioxide released by all fossil fuel emission, strongly implying that humans are not to blame for climate change.

«To mitigate the effects of climate change, we can talk about two types of options: to attack it at its origin, by eliminating or reducing the human factors that contribute to it (such as, reducing emissions, controlling pollution, etc.) or developing strategies that allow for its effects to be reduced, such as, in the case that concerns us, increasing green areas in cities, using, for example, the tops of buildings as green roofs,» states the University of Seville researcher, Luis Pérez Urrestarazu.

Geographer Carol Harden, the editor of the journal, Physical Geography, was aware that Soon was a vociferous critic of the idea that humans were causing global warming and of proposals for the U.S. government to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

The researchers further recommend that, given that many human influences are driving both climate change and biodiversity loss, conservationists should aim for win - win solutions such as the United Nations program REDD + (an extension of the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation programme)-- an initiative that protects forests while also creating benefits for local communities and biodiversity.

Within minutes, the two men had also agreed that it was important to prepare for climate change, whether human - induced or natural, and that an expansion of nuclear reactors to generate power could help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The news of the increase in U.S. human - caused GHG emissions comes at a critical moment in the global battle against climate change, particularly after the International Energy Agency announced last month that global carbon emissions related to energy consumption have stabilized for the first time in a growing economy.

EPA had also set out a separate finding in 2015 as part of the new source rule for power plants, specifically stating that the facilities contribute significantly to greenhouse gas emissions, harming human health.

The National Research Council in Washington, D.C., estimates that dairy cows account for as much as 20 percent of human - induced emissions of methane, a potent climate change — causing greenhouse gas.

Although carbon dioxide accounts for the vast majority of greenhouse gas emissions from human activities, methane emissions are also an important factor driving climate change.

«Deforestation in the tropics accounts for nearly 20 per cent of carbon emissions due to human activities,» Dr Canadell says.

Regardless, CO2 human emissions levels are not going to fall (for decades at least), and even if they did, there would not be any dramatic change to the climate.

It is not a good term to use to describe those who are rationally skeptical of the (not yet scientifically validated) premise that AGW, caused principally by the human emissions of CO2, has been the primary cause of past warming and that it represents a serious potential threat for humanity and the environment.

«In the face of natural variability and complexity, the consequences of change in any single factor, for example greenhouse gas emissions, can not readily be isolated, and prediction becomes difficult... Scientific uncertainties continue to limit our ability to make objective, quantitative determinations regarding the human role in recent climate change, or the degree and consequence of future change.»