Sentences with phrase «given change in greenhouse gas»

Almost all the SOD's 10.2 % error standard deviation for greenhouse gas AF relates to the AF magnitude that a given change in the greenhouse gas concentration produces, not to uncertainty as to the change in concentration.

The study warns that, given no change in greenhouse gas emissions in the near future, around 99 percent of the glaciers around the world's tallest mountain will melt, drastically changing the surrounding environment.

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

Not exact matches

We'll need to come back to this at the next conference of the climate change convention, to be held in Doha this December — a curious choice, given Qatar's position close to the top of the league table for greenhouse gas emissions per head.

Biello: A lot of scientists that I've spoken to think we have no chance of meeting 450 ppm given that we haven't done hardly anything to change our course and there are other scientists who say that we have already well past kind of the safe point for concentration of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

A few of the main points of the third assessment report issued in 2001 include: An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system; emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols due to human activities continue to alter the atmosphere in ways that are expected to affect the climate; confidence in the ability of models to project future climate has increased; and there is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.

Given the country's status of being the largest greenhouse gas emitter in the world, Greenpeace says, a tiny drop in China's carbon emissions could translate into a big change in the international stage.

The science has given us now probability distributions of various different kinds of outcomes in terms of temperature and climate change in relation to given stocks of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Climate change scenarios are based on projections of future greenhouse gas (particularly carbon dioxide) emissions and resulting atmospheric concentrations given various plausible but imagined combinations of how governments, societies, economies, and technologies will change in the future.

If we knew ocean heat uptake as well as we know atmospheric temperature change, then we could pin down fairly well the radiative imbalance at the top of the atmosphere, which would give us a fair indication of how much warming is «in the pipeline» given current greenhouse gas concentrations.

Given that H2O is the dominant greenhouse gas in the tropics, doubling CO2 levels will not change temperatures much there.

Paul Voosen, one of the most talented journalists probing human - driven climate change and related energy issues, has written an award - worthy two - part report for Greenwire on one of the most enduring sources of uncertainty in climate science — how the complicated response of clouds in a warming world limits understanding of how hot it could get from a given rise in greenhouse gas concentrations:

The only change I'd suggest is to drop the words «by industry,» given that everyone in societies thriving on fossil fuels has harvested the present benefits while largely discounting, so far, the need to invest against long - term risks from the resulting buildup of greenhouse gases.

Previous work by Barnett's group showed that coupled models when forced with greenhouse gases did give ocean heat content changes similar to that shown in the data.

As I wrote when I last cited this, «The only change I'd suggest is to drop the words «by industry,» given that everyone in societies thriving on fossil fuels has harvested the present benefits while largely discounting, so far, the need to invest against long - term risks from the resulting buildup of greenhouse gases.

I doubt that anything would change my cousins mind, however I would like to give others (to whom my cousin has preached) the details in order to put them straight on the issue of whether or not Carbon dioxide is a «greenhouse» gas.

The IPCC 2001 report states «Several recent reconstructions estimate that variations in solar irradiance give rise to a forcing at the Earth's surface of about 0.6 to 0.7 Wm - 2 since the Maunder Minimum and about half this over the 20th century... All reconstructions indicate that the direct effect of variations in solar forcing over the 20th century was about 20 to 25 % of the change in forcing due to increases in the well - mixed greenhouse gases.»

In the meantime, it gives clear insights into what scientists see happening to the planet's climate as human industrial activities, as well as land - use changes, pump increasing amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the air.

What you're doing in that equation is exactly a numerical integration: you take the change in greenhouse gas forcing at a given point in time.

Given the magnitude of potential harms from climate change, those who make skeptical arguments against the mainstream scientific view on climate change have a duty to submit skeptical arguments to peer - review, acknowledge what is not in dispute about climate change science and not only focus on what is unknown, refrain from making specious claims about mainstream science of climate change such as the entire scientific basis for climate change has been completely debunked, and assume the burden of proof to show that emissions of greenhouse gases are benign.

Given the strictures on shareholder proposals, it's common for investor advocates to push not for specific changes, but for analyses of risk: asking companies to publicly measure their greenhouse gas emissions, to analyze the environmental impact of their global supply chains, or, in a strategy pioneered last year, to quantify their exposure to «stranded assets,» such as fossil fuel reserves that would exceed the world carbon budget.

For instance, US Senator James Imhofe of Kansas called climate change «the greatest hoax ever» (Johnson, 2011) To claim that climate change science is the greatest hoax ever is at minimum, if not a lie, reckless disregard for the truth given the number of prestigious scientific organizations that have publicly supported the consensus view, the undeniable science supporting the conclusion that if greenhouse gases increase in the atmosphere some warming should be expected, the clear link between rising greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere and increases in fossil fuel use around the world, as well undeniable increases in warming being that have been experienced at the global scale.

This is so because in addition to the theological reasons given by Pope Francis recently: (a) it is a problem mostly caused by some nations and people emitting high - levels of greenhouse gases (ghg) in one part of the world who are harming or threatening tens of millions of living people and countless numbers of future generations throughout the world who include some of the world's poorest people who have done little to cause the problem, (b) the harms to many of the world's most vulnerable victims of climate change are potentially catastrophic, (c) many people most at risk from climate change often can't protect themselves by petitioning their governments; their best hope is that those causing the problem will see that justice requires them to greatly lower their ghg emissions, (d) to protect the world's most vulnerable people nations must limit their ghg emissions to levels that constitute their fair share of safe global emissions, and, (e) climate change is preventing some people from enjoying the most basic human rights including rights to life and security among others.

The presence of feedback effects and tipping points calls into question some of the most fundamental assumptions of climate change negotiations, including the belief that we can «overshoot» to, say, 550 ppm and then work back to 450 ppm (the path advocated in the Stern and Garnaut reports), that greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere can be stabilised at some level, and the belief that we can adapt to some given degree of warming.

On June 25th, President Obama gave a major speech on climate change in which he announced what his administration would do to reduce greenhouse gas (ghg) emissions in the United States.

Given the growing urgency of the need to rapidly reduce global greenhouse gas emissions and the hard - to - imagine magnitude of global emissions reductions needed to stabilize atmospheric concentrations at reasonably safe levels, the failure of many engaged in climate change controversies to see the practical significance of understanding climate change as an ethical problem must be seen as a huge human tragedy.

Given the magnitude of potential harms from climate change, those who make skeptical arguments against the mainstream scientific view on climate change have a duty to submit skeptical arguments to peer - review, acknowledge what is not in dispute about climate change science and not only focus on what is unknown, refrain from making specious claims about the mainstream science of climate change such as the entire scientific basis for climate change that has been completely debunked, and assume the burden of proof to show that emissions of greenhouse gases are benign.

Radiative Heat Transfer is a fast response mechanism and there is no basis for the idea that it would take decades for warming to take place for any given change to the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

And it played a major role in the early stages of the global negotiations on greenhouse gas reduction, hosting the UNFCC gathering at Kyoto in 1997, which gave its name to the first global climate change protocol.

At some level this may be true, but in practice it's not, otherwise the argument about saturation would be correct, and nobody would give a damn one way or the other about further changes in greenhouse gases.

More than a decade later, in 1988, NASA professor Jim Hansen gave the issue of climate change a boost, linking greenhouse gas emissions to global warming in a testimony to the US Congress.

On the other hand, scattering sulfate aerosols are less efficient than greenhouse gases in changing the surface temperature for a given forcing.

Given this, the challenge we face as a species is to roughly double global energy production by mid-century while simultaneously cutting greenhouse gas emissions in half worldwide (and about 80 percent in the United States), so that we can avoid the worst consequences of climate change.

Given that > 93 % of warming is going into the oceans, ~ 2.3 % into the atmosphere, even a small rate change in ocean warming relative to the total greenhouse gas imbalance will have a huge effect on air temperatures.

1950s: Research on military applications of radar and infrared radiation promotes advances in radiative transfer theory and measurements = > Radiation math — Studies conducted largely for military applications give accurate values of infrared absorption by gases = > CO2 greenhouse — Nuclear physicists and chemists develop Carbon - 14 analysis, useful for dating ancient climate changes = > Carbon dates, for detecting carbon from fossil fuels in the atmosphere, and for measuring the rate of ocean turnover = > CO2 greenhouse — Development of digital computers affects many fields including the calculation of radiation transfer in the atmosphere = > Radiation math, and makes it possible to model weather processes = > Models (GCMs)-- Geological studies of polar wandering help provoke Ewing - Donn model of ice ages = > Simple models — Improvements in infrared instrumentation (mainly for industrial processes) allow very precise measurements of atmospheric CO2 = > CO2 greenhouse.

I find it difficult at best to comprehend your position on human - induced climate change, given the fact that every science academy across the globe, including the NAS, AAAS, AMA, AMS, AGU, and countless other scientific bodies, ALL agree that AGW is happening, it is already bad, it is going to get worse, and we should be doing everything in our power to cut down our emissions of greenhouse gases and pollution in general.

There is no doubt that we should aim to limit changes in the global mean surface temperature to 2C above pre-industrial [levels], but given this is an ambitious target, and we don't know in details how to limit greenhouse gas emissions to realise a 2 degree target, we should be prepared to adapt to 4C.

Paolo Frankl, Head of IEA's Renewable Energy Division, commented: «Given that global energy demand for heat represents almost half of the world's final energy use - more than the combined global demand for electricity and transport - solar heat can make a significant contribution in both tackling climate change and strengthening energy security, The IEA's Solar Heating and Cooling Roadmap outlines how best to advance the global uptake of solar heating and cooling (SHC) technologies, which, it notes, involve very low levels of greenhouse - gas emissions.

This categorization is problematic because this classification into these two categories arguably made some limited sense when the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was opened for ratification in 1992, but it doesn't now given that some of the countries that were initially classified as developing countries, including India and China, are quickly emerging as the among the largest emitters of greenhouse gases (ghg).

Besides the information about greenhouse - gas levels from the trapped air bubbles at Vostok, a sediment core from the bottom of the Red Sea indicates changes in sea level, which in turn give an approximation of ice sheet area.