Sentences with phrase «how about the greenhouse gas»

Not exact matches

«And communities asked to accept intrusive new renewable energy infrastructure such as wind farms will ask how serious the government is about reducing greenhouse gas emissions when it is still prepared to allow carbon intensive opencast mining.»

Hanna said he has «significant concerns» about how the EPA expanded its authority with the rule, but he believed the GOP bill would have gone too far to prevent future rules aimed at cutting greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change.

A California microbiologist is unearthing startling clues about how tiny wetland organisms influence greenhouse gas emissions.

Because methane, which makes up about 95 percent of the natural gas in pipelines, is about 25 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, the leakage raises a troubling climate question: How clean is natural gas?

So, how exactly, I mean everybody hears about global warming or climate change and rising levels of greenhouse gases — how are the two actually related?

Under the new well classification, operators are expected to keep close tabs on how an underground greenhouse gas plume moves about in porous rock.

Most studies so far have focused on how aviation may affect global warming (aircraft comprise about 2 percent of global greenhouse - gas emissions), not vice versa.

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.»

«Our study is about how a whole forest ecosystem consumes and produces carbon dioxide, or CO2, the main greenhouse gas linked to human - induced climate change,» says Wehr, a research associate in Saleska's lab in the UA's Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology.

RICHLAND, Wash. — As the Arctic warms, tons of carbon locked away in Arctic tundra will be transformed into the powerful greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane, but scientists know little about how that transition takes place.

It's not totally about how much infrared from the surface that is blocked (currently about 90 % of surface emissions is absorbed by greenhouse gases), its also about the height within the atmosphere from which radiation escapes.

The observed rapid warming thus gives urgency to discussions about how to slow greenhouse gas emissions (6)».

It informs us about the global temperature change «in the pipeline» without further change of climate forcings and it defines how much greenhouse gases must be reduced to restore Earth's energy balance, which, at least to a good approximation, must be the requirement for stabilizing global climate.

Seems like this site is anti EV's because I made a reasonable post about how a Tesla is responsible for less greenhouse gases than a typical ICE car.

How about: the heat resulting from all the greenhouse gases humans have pumped into the atmosphere.

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.

CC: NO, we are talking about how the anthropogenic addition of CO2 and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere will effect global temperatures and hence climate.

First, there is still a lot of uncertainty about the extent and pace of warming from a particular rise in concentrations of greenhouse gases, and about how fast and far seas will rise as a result.

Because that's about how much time we have to stop the increase in greenhouse gas emissions and begin steep reductions that will bring emissions to near zero within another ten years at most, if we are to have any hope of avoiding the most catastrophic consequences of global warming.

There is a lively debate in climate science about how best to compare the importance of these greenhouse gases, and many climatologists deeply immersed in studying human - driven global warming reject the method used by Howarth.

Much less challenging, and high profile, is the need, in a world heading toward nine billion people, to figure out how to make everything that's been learned about drought, floods, and other climate - related risks useful to the majority of the human population — people in Niger and Bangladesh who face such risks every day right now, with or without whatever climate destabilization is coming from the ongoing buildup of greenhouse gases.

But I really like how he describes the sometimes uncomfortable need to fracture old alliances and cross longstanding battle lines if you're serious about finding ways to cut greenhouse gas emissions that can work in the real world.

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!

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.

While all such forecasts are implicitly uncertain, this one helps clarify where to focus efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions; reinforces the importance of resolving questions about how to safely expand, while not stopping, extraction of vast domestic reserves of natural gas; and powerfully challenges proponents of accelerated deployment of today's menu of renewable energy technologies or nuclear power plants to lay out a credible strategy for supplanting coal.

The observed rapid warming thus gives urgency to discussions about how to slow greenhouse gas emissions (6)».

Those against will be Daniel M. Kammen, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, focused on renewable and «appropriate» energy technology and a senior energy adviser to the Obama campaign; Oliver Tickell, an environmental writer / campaigner in search of what he calls Kyoto2, a framework for controlling greenhouse gases that is effective, efficient and equitable; and Adam Werbach, who gained fame as the youngest president of the Sierra Club (elected at 23), but now is focused on «blue» marketing for business growth framed around sustainability, as the head of Saatchi & Saatchi S. I'll have to ask him about how that works.

The team ran a suite of 400 computer simulations incorporating both what is known about how the climate could react to a greenhouse - gas buildup and a wide range of variations in the global economy and other human factors that might affect the outcome.

In the meantime, the more serious question for ecotourism — at the poles or in the Galápagos Islands or elsewhere — remains similar to questions about greenhouse gases, population, and many other issues: How much is too much?

e360: You've written recently about uncertainty over the future impacts of climate change and how that plays a role in discouraging action in reducing greenhouse gases.

I'd summarize Lou's main point as being that it's meaningless to sound off about how much more «potent» a greenhouse gas methane (natural gas) may be, compared to CO2, unless you also take into account how small methane emissions are relative to CO2.

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....

What's important here, and remains important, scientists say, is how the patterns of atmospheric and climatic change reveal the most about the involvement of greenhouse gases, not simply the change in global temperature.

If anyone is still uncertain about how consistent CO2 measurements are globally, please go to the World Data Center for Greenhouse Gases, search for CO2 data from various stations, and look at them yourself.

So the next time you hear a member of Congress or a conservative activist complaining about EPA's greenhouse gas regulations, ask them how they intend to fix that problem.

Thus a grand solar minimum would have to cause about 1 °C cooling, plus it would have to offset the continued human - caused global warming between 1 and 5 °C by 2100, depending on how our greenhouse gas emissions change over the next century.

The nation is once again assessing how best to stimulate the deployment of advanced energy technologies in response to recent high energy prices — caused by the growing world demand for energy, wars in the Middle East, and last year's hurricanes — and concerns about the adverse environmental effects, particularly greenhouse gas emissions, of using conventional fossil energy.

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

Various possible future scenarios are also shown (red, magenta, blue, cyan) which differ due to different assumptions about how much greenhouse gasses humanity might emit.

Also, Inside Climate News recently described a new study published in Science about how fossil - fuel funded climate - science deniers disingenuously shift their arguments and use normal scientific uncertainties to deflect attention from the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change and argue for no action to reduce greenhouse - gas emissions.

A carbon budget is an attempt to give information about how much greenhouse gases human society can emit without exceeding some target temperature (e.g. 2 °C) to some accepted likelihood (e.g. 33 %).

They wrote (as quoted by you): «But given how little is known about either the climate's sensitivity to greenhouse - gas emissions or about future emissions levels,...» The use of the word «either» makes it very clear that The Economist knows that uncertainty about climate sensitivity is * not * the same thing as (or «equal to») uncertainty about emissions.

And whilst sceptical sites necessarily need to attract the scientifically literate, how about having a layman's introduction somewhere, with simple things like the number and quantities of greenhouse gases.

Since the greenhouse effect is all about how energy escapes from the atmosphere to space, CO2 and other well - mixed greenhouse gases have more «leverage», so to speak, than does water.

But instead will apply your same standard: I would say greenhouse theory is about radiant properties of greenhouse gases, and it doesn't explain how a thermos works.

To adjudicate this issue, the court will need to assess the greenhouse gas reductions that the A.B. 1493 Regulations will cause and then compare these reductions to the proffered experts» view about how much this level of reduction will affect the global climate.

UCS finds that Morocco and Ethiopia, minor players on the global stage, are far clearer about how they will make progress on reforestation and reducing emissions from agriculture than China, the world's biggest greenhouse gas emitter, and Canada, the ninth biggest emitter and one of the very worst in terms of per capita emissions.

While CO2 is indeed a greenhouse gas, increasing concentrations of which may be expected to have (other things being equal) a warming effect, scientists disagree about how large that effect may be (this is particularly affected by ignorance of the effect of clouds).

How about this one, ««Polar amplification» usually refers to greater climate change near the pole compared to the rest of the hemisphere or globe in response to a change in global climate forcing, such as the concentration of greenhouse gases (GHGs) or solar output (see e.g. Moritz et al 2002).