Sentences with phrase «how human greenhouse gas»

So these two articles are suggesting that a grand solar minimum could have a net cooling effect in the ballpark of 1 to 6 °C, depending on how human greenhouse gas emissions change over the next century.

Climate scientists can not predict how human greenhouse gas emissions will change in the future, which is a question for the public and policymakers.

It looked at how human greenhouse gas emissions had affected the probability of a devastating heat wave in Europe in the summer of 2003 (estimated to have killed at least 35,000 people.)

Not exact matches

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.»

... modalities, rules and guidelines as to how, and which, additional human - induced activities related to changes in greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks in the agricultural soils and the land - use change and forestry... shall be added or subtracted.

Scientists can measure how much energy greenhouse gases now add (roughly three watts per square meter), but what eludes precise definition is how much other factors — the response of clouds to warming, the cooling role of aerosols, the heat and gas absorbed by oceans, human transformation of the landscape, even the natural variability of solar strength — diminish or strengthen that effect.

Natural and human - produced greenhouse gases change the climate, thereby altering how allergy - inducing plants, insects and molds spread.

Although the earth has experienced exceptional warming over the past century, to estimate how much more will occur we need to know how temperature will respond to the ongoing human - caused rise in atmospheric greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide.

The computer model determines how the average surface temperature responds to changing natural factors, such as volcanoes and the sun, and human factors — greenhouse gases, aerosol pollutants, and so on.

Extreme weather events like Harvey are expected to become more likely as Earth's climate changes due to greenhouse gas emissions, and scientists don't understand how extreme weather will impact invasive pests, pollinators and other species that affect human well - being.

«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.

The year's incredible heat serves as a stark reminder of how much the Earth's temperature has risen due to the steady buildup of heat - trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from human activities like power generation, transportation and forest clearing.

The outcome depends on how much more carbon dioxide, a main greenhouse gas, human activities (such as burning coal and oil) dump into the atmosphere.

The importance of heterogeneous human climate forcings does not diminish the important of added greenhouse gases, but does indicate that more attention needs to be given to these other human climate forcings, including how they can modify atmospheric and ocean circulation features.

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

After each of its four reports so far — including the pivotal 2007 assessment that concluded with 90 percent confidence that greenhouse gases from humans were the main force behind recent warming --- the panel leadership has met to consider changing how it works.

* The role of the US in global efforts to address pollutants that are broadly dispersed across national borders, such as greenhouse gasses, persistent organic pollutants, ozone, etc...; * How they view a president's ability to influence national science policy in a way that will persist beyond their term (s), as would be necessary for example to address global climate change or enhancement of science education nationwide; * Their perspective on the relative roles that scientific knowledge, ethics, economics, and faith should play in resolving debates over embryonic stem cell research, evolution education, human population growth, etc... * What specific steps they would take to prevent the introduction of political or economic bias in the dissemination and use of scientific knowledge; * (and many more...)

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.

Planet Under Pressure, a four - day conference exploring how science can identify and limit risks in the face of increasing human impacts on the Earth, has ended * with a call for «urgent action» against the the unrelenting buildup of greenhouse gases.

But a story I've just written describes how scientists probing lakes, ice and old trees from Alaska to Siberia have found out just how big a poke humans appear to be giving that system through emissions of heat - trapping greenhouse gases (and probably heat - trapping soot, too).

For those out there seeing any talk of a human warming influence as a hoax, it's also useful to note that this intellectual tussle over climate sensitivity is over how much human - produced greenhouse gases will warm the world, not if they can do so.

Global warming from the ongoing buildup of human - generated greenhouse gases is almost certainly contributing to the ice retreats, a host of Arctic experts now agree, although they hold a range of views on how much of the recent big ice retreats is due to human activities.

pg xiii This Policymakers Summary aims to bring out those elements of the main report which have the greatest relevance to policy formulation, in answering the following questions • What factors determine global climate 7 • What are the greenhouse gases, and how and why are they increasing 9 • Which gases are the most important 9 • How much do we expect the climate to change 9 • How much confidence do we have in our predictions 9 • Will the climate of the future be very different 9 • Have human activities already begun to change global climate 9 How much will sea level rise 9 • What will be the effects on ecosystems 9 • What should be done to reduce uncertainties, and how long will this take 9 This report is intended to respond to the practical needs of the policymakhow and why are they increasing 9 • Which gases are the most important 9 • How much do we expect the climate to change 9 • How much confidence do we have in our predictions 9 • Will the climate of the future be very different 9 • Have human activities already begun to change global climate 9 How much will sea level rise 9 • What will be the effects on ecosystems 9 • What should be done to reduce uncertainties, and how long will this take 9 This report is intended to respond to the practical needs of the policymakHow much do we expect the climate to change 9 • How much confidence do we have in our predictions 9 • Will the climate of the future be very different 9 • Have human activities already begun to change global climate 9 How much will sea level rise 9 • What will be the effects on ecosystems 9 • What should be done to reduce uncertainties, and how long will this take 9 This report is intended to respond to the practical needs of the policymakHow much confidence do we have in our predictions 9 • Will the climate of the future be very different 9 • Have human activities already begun to change global climate 9 How much will sea level rise 9 • What will be the effects on ecosystems 9 • What should be done to reduce uncertainties, and how long will this take 9 This report is intended to respond to the practical needs of the policymakHow much will sea level rise 9 • What will be the effects on ecosystems 9 • What should be done to reduce uncertainties, and how long will this take 9 This report is intended to respond to the practical needs of the policymakhow long will this take 9 This report is intended to respond to the practical needs of the policymaker.

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:

Rather, the IPCC has produced various «emissions scenarios» that represent estimates of how greenhouse gas emissions might evolve if humans follow various paths of economic development and population growth.

The lines of evidence and analysis supporting the mainstream position on climate change are diverse and robust — embracing a huge body of direct measurements by a variety of methods in a wealth of locations on the Earth's surface and from space, solid understanding of the basic physics governing how energy flow in the atmosphere interacts with greenhouse gases, insights derived from the reconstruction of causes and consequences of millions of years of natural climatic variations, and the results of computer models that are increasingly capable of reproducing the main features of Earth's climate with and without human influences.

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.

Overall, the panel's reports have never focused much on research examining how humans respond (or fail to respond) to certain kinds of risk, particularly «super wicked» problems such global warming, which is imbued with persistent uncertainty on key points (the pace of sea - level rise, the extent of warming from a certain buildup of greenhouse gases), dispersed and delayed risks, and a variegated menu of possible responses.

Through text, diagrams, interactive stations, and videos, the exhibition shows how human activities are producing greenhouse gasses and contributing to climate change.

If you accept that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that human fossil fuel use is now the dominant contributor to atmospheric CO2 changes, then knowing how much global temperatures respond to increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is important for understanding the future climate.

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.

A new grand solar minimum would not trigger another LIA; in fact, the maximum 0.3 °C cooling would barely make a dent in the human - caused global warming over the next century, likely between 1 and 5 °C, depending on how much we manage to reduce our fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.

«So there's a lag between how fast the earth's system can respond and the extremely rapid way humans are increasing CO2,» Brigham - Grette said, warning that the Arctic could once again become ice - free if greenhouse gases continue to be pumped into the atmosphere.

On the question of hurricanes, the theoretical arguments that more energy and water vapor in the atmosphere should lead to stronger storms are really sound (after all, storm intensity increases going from pole toward equator), but determining precisely how human influences (so including GHGs [greenhouse gases] and aerosols, and land cover change) should be changing hurricanes in a system where there are natural external (solar and volcanoes) and internal (e.g., ENSO, NAO [El Nino - Southern Oscillation, North Atlantic Oscillation]-RRB- influences is quite problematic — our climate models are just not good enough yet to carry out the types of sensitivity tests that have been done using limited area hurricane models run for relatively short times.

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 %).

In fact, there is no better way to obtain a good picture of how human health and welfare may trend in the future under increases in greenhouse gas emissions than to assess how we have fared in the past during a period of increasing greenhouse gas emissions and ambient levels.

And in fact when you look at the scientific literature, it's an interesting disconnect because the modelers who study emissions and how to control those emissions are generally much more comfortable setting goals in terms of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas concentrations because that comes more or less directly out of their models and is much more proximate or more closely connected to what humans actually do to screw up the climate in the first place, which is emit these greenhouse gases.

Over the last 50 years, climate scientists have built an increasingly clear picture of how the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that arise from human economic activity are changing the Earth's climate.

There are simply too many unknowns involved in the future evolution of climate, such as how much humans will curb their future greenhouse gas emissions.

The computer model determines how the average surface temperature responds to changing natural factors, such as volcanoes and the sun, and human factors — greenhouse gases, aerosol pollutants, and so on.

The speaker, a relatively young climate scientist, presented a piece of research using numerical models to assess how various human influences (including but not limited to greenhouse gases) affected a particular aspect of the 20th century climate record in the United States.

Although the earth has experienced exceptional warming over the past century, to estimate how much more will occur we need to know how temperature will respond to the ongoing human - caused rise in atmospheric greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide.

That's right, the latest climate science (some 10 studies published in just the past 3 years) indicates that the earth's climate sensitivity — that is, how much the global average surface temperature will rise as a result of greenhouse gases emitted from human activities — is some 33 percent less than scientists thought at the time of the last IPCC Assessment, published in 2007.

So we have a situation in which the latest science on two key issues: how much the earth will warm as a result of human greenhouse gas emissions, and how well climate models perform in projecting the warming, is largely not incorporated into the new IPCC report.

To better assess how climate change caused by human greenhouse gas emissions will likely impact wheat, maize and soybean, an international team of scientists now ran an unprecedentedly comprehensive set of computer simulations of US crop yields.

The basic physics and chemistry of how carbon dioxide and other human - produced greenhouse gases trap heat in the lower atmosphere have been understood for nearly two centuries.

To gain a clearer understanding of how the El Niño Southern Oscillation (as the overall climate pattern is called) affects the climate as a whole, Aharon wants to see how the process worked in the time before humans were adding carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere and impacting the global climate.

On the vital question of how to approach climate change, the most influential economist is William Nordhaus whose explicit position is that we should decide to reduce greenhouse gas emissions only if cost - benefit analysis or an optimisation model concludes that the net benefits to humans are positive, where the relevant effects are essentially impacts on economic output (Nordhaus and Yang, 1996).

By comparing values of these parameters from the mid-19 century to now, they can estimate how much the earth warmed in association with human greenhouse gas emissions.