Sentences with phrase «how human greenhouse gas emissions»

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Beyond the scientific questions — it becomes a question of how to pragmatically reduce human pressures on Earth systems — including inter alia — greenhouse gas emissions.

By then comparing the results of these Industrial and Non-industrial simulated climates, and recording the occurrence of floods like that of Autumn 2000 in each of them, the change in the frequency of occurrence (or «risk») of such a flood was determined, and therefore how much risk is attributable to human - induced emissions of greenhouse gases over the last century.

People will die», while others scream how moves to cut greenhouse gas emissions «devalues human life» and «kills thousands» in Britain.

RE: The Over-whelming scientific Consensus on man - made CO2 caused Global - warming - 97 % of the climate scientists surveyed believe «global aver temps have increased» during the past century [So do I]-- Your quotes: How «significant it is that 84 % of climate scientists have reached a «consensus» that «human - induced warming is occurring» «--RCB- 84 % «personally believe» [implies they may NOT have actually studied this topic — IE: may NOT be experts on this particular matter] human - induced warming is occurring -LCB--... — «In 1991 only 41 % of climate scientists were very confident that industrial emissions of greenhouse gases were responsible for climate disruption.

This project ran two climate model experiments: one, «Historical» included both human - caused greenhouse gas emissions and natural emissions, such as volcanoes; the second, «HistorialNat» included only the natural emissions, and deliberately left out human - caused emissions, to see how the climate might have changed without them.

I agree with Dr. Judith Curry «we do not know how much humans have contributed to the recent observed warming and there is disagreement among scientists as to whether human - caused emissions of greenhouse gases is the dominant cause of recent warming, relative to natural causes.»

Perhaps the most important issue in all this is, as the Royal Society pointed out in their assessment of geoengineering, the first and foremost thing we have to do to stop climate change is radically limit greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activity — stopping burning fossil fuels and stopping deforestation are at the top of list for how to do that.

So, in order to trigger another LIA, a new grand solar minimum would have to cause about 1 °C cooling, plus it would have to offset the continued human - caused global warming of 1 to 5 °C by 2100, depending on how our greenhouse gas emissions change over the next century.