Sentences with phrase «green house gases»

Removing them causes a substantial release into the atmosphere adding to the climate alteration crisis with high levels of green house gases being emitted with their destruction.

The conclusion of this should be that only a little part of global warming can be directly attributed to increased Green House Gases.

True / False: «Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and minor green house gases like CO2 do not conform to current experimental knowledge.»

1) the sun 2) the movement of the continents 3) Milankovich cycles 4) Green house gases (water vapour, c02, methane) Is this list correct?

Although it is generally believed that the increase in the mean global surface temperature since industrialization is caused by the increase in green house gases in the atmosphere, some people cite solar activity, either directly or through its effect on cosmic rays, as an underestimated contributor to such global warming.

This means the energy CO2 absorbs from the earth is handed off to non green house gases increasing their temperature and adding to convection.

As the negotiations grow ever more technical and complex, it is good to keep in mind that the ultimate goal of the convetion is to stabilize the green house gases in the atmosphere to a level that prevents dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.

Green house gases do send IR to space and do cool the Earth.

Green house gases really don't warm the earth.

The point of this is that to cool the Earth, hot air only needs to rise about 2 km (an easy task) to get above most of the green house gases - on Venus, it has to rise 55 km.

Furthermore the UN released statistics on how the meat industry produces more green house gases than all the world's transportation combined.

I call on our polticians to take immediate action in reducing our green house gases by putting a moratorium on any new coal mine in Australia.

``... snow pack has decreased and been observed to melt earlier in the calendar year... the observed changes in the hydrological components... can be explained well by anthropogenic forcing (green house gases and aerosols) alone.»

And to add to that, there are plenty of other green house gases that display properties similar to Co2 in much larger quantities which are more effected by natural events then man made events.

Green house gases emissions in the production and use of ethanol from sugarcane in Brazil: The 2005/2006 averages and a prediction for 2020

Yes, green house gases are necessary to sustain us humans.

Green House Gases refract to space 20 % of total otherwise available warming firelight from the sun, so it never warms the Earth.

These are mostly data rich papers, and do not provide new evidence about green house gases.

Nuclear energy is a green technology in respect to the fact that it does not emit green house gases that are dangerous to our environment.

CBO analyzed research on the effects that policies to reduce green house gases would have on employment and concluded that total employment during the next few decades would be lower than would be the case in the absence of such policies.

QUestion: Since we can calculate within a factor of 50 % or so the stable temperature of the earth just by looking at the concentration of green house gases on the earth and no other factors it does not make any sense to me to talk of feedbacks as having any impact other than transiently.

That is the null hypothesis is that the currently observed rises in global temperature is the result of green house gases exclusively.

It is very good that a new satellite will give ground data of all green house gases, so maybe in a year or so we will know much better what is really happening.

Gullible in that they swallow the wind weasel spin and actually believe that wind farms produce meaningful power and effectively reduce the production of green house gases.

There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in human hydrocarbon use or in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other green house gases are causing or can be expected to cause unfavorable changes in global temperatures, weather, or landscape.

So called Green House Gases work by absorbing then re-emitting IR.

except Green House Gases have over powered those natural cycles.

There are better and fairer solutions to combat Green House Gases.

The «Clean Air Act» needs to be amended: as reads «Green House Gases», amend to read «'' Green House Gases except CO2».

There is no reason to limit human production of CO2, CH4, and other minor green house gases as has been proposed.

While criticizing third world countries for producing more green house gases it is more quiet about it's own companies going into these nations to produce.

If one country is producing the most carbon and green house gases it will be brought out and into attention, and they will have to answer for it.

And would likely dry forests to the extent that fires would be widespread and also release massive amounts of green house gases.

CO2 is less then 2 % of all green house gases.

Now our human being no responsibility to our next generation, want to leave a heavy green house gases load to next generation.

Let me explain my arguments a bit better: 1) In Feichter et al. 2004 we describe a modelling study were we run the climate model twice: One run is with estimates of present day anthropogenic and natural aerosols and green house gases (called present - day scenario ~ 1985).

It does matter what the cause is because if it is all natural, then green house gases are not an issue and we can burn away like mad without increasing the warming.

And, Gavin has just reminded us that we have not yet seen the full effects from green house gases already emitted!

Why scientist are still failing to control the green house gases and their effect on the health of environment.

Which gas is being used instead of chloro floro carbon or other green house gases in refrigerator and air conditioners?

Is it possible to find an alternative for green house gases to save the environment from global warming with the help of green chemistry?

It is not that I am trying to scare you, but the truth is that the concentration of green house gases has already passed the warning line; the climate system may get irreversible.

He noted that though the nuclear power plant is known for high energy density without green house gases emissions and Few Recourse limitations, it can not compare to the safe, efficient newly invented (Green) «EX5» solar Quantum physics energy generator (nuclear replacement plant) which only needs a solar panel for 8seconds.

Electricity production (including from coal) is the leading cause of green house gases right now, and the best estimate I can find about cement production puts it at about 5 % of the total man - made causes.

Coal mining produces green house gases, it ruins entire ecosystems through the poisoning of water tables and the destruction of forests and sometimes entire mountaintops, it pollutes with heavy metals, the list goes on and on.

With the elimination of fly - ash alternatives, cement creation will quickly be the leading cause of green house gases.

It is possible that the creation of cement will not be as bad as the pollution from coal - mining; however, in regards to «With the elimination of fly - ash alternatives, cement creation will quickly be the leading cause of green house gases» — If it is a top creator now, and we increase the usage, would you not expect it to climb the list?

Cement creation, right now, is one of the top producers in the world in green house gases.

CO2 from man has been debunked so the definition is being changed to include all green house gases.

And with the Sun continuously expanding and contributions of green house gases from volcanoes, African termites, cows and decaying trees / plants / insects / animals, there may not be anything we can do about it even if there is an effect.