Sentences with phrase «human emissions do»

We've warmed the Earth by more than 0.8 degrees Celsius since the 1880s, and if human emissions do not swiftly come to a halt, we could easily see warming of 4, 5, 7 C or more by the end of this century alone.

Human emissions don't disappear in space, so where does the difference between emissions and increase in the atmosphere go?

Not exact matches

Rick Perry, the U.S. Secretary of Energy who infamously once said he would do away with the Department of Energy, told CNBC that he didn't believe that carbon dioxide emissions from humans are the main cause for climate change.

«I don't believe that humans are causing climate change, but I believe that reducing carbon emissions might reverse climate change.»

Politics of deferred gratification Under one of the additional scenarios, known as RCP 4.5, humans take longer to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but eventually do so, and under the other, known as RCP 8.5, carbon dioxide concentrations continue to rise through 2100.

«This research does not change the consensus view that human emissions drive climate change,» says Fortunat Joos, a climate modeller at the University of Bern, Switzerland.

Clearly, humans have something to do with it, and we ought to begin reducing our CO2 emissions.

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.

Decisions made today are made in the context of confident projections of future warming with continued emissions, but clearly there is more to do to better characterize the human and economic consequences of delaying action on climate change and how to frame these issues in the context of other concerns.

Basically, they say that let's see what the climate will do when we remove humans entirely, whereas other studies have asked: what will the climate do if we continue to pollute as usual, but without increased emissions.

Regardless, CO2 human emissions levels are not going to fall (for decades at least), and even if they did, there would not be any dramatic change to the climate.

Climate sensitivity does not care about emission schemes or human concerns.

Do you mean to imply that the subsequent decrease of CO2 in («so absent any human emissions, there would be a net decrease of CO2») would cancel the temperature rise that would otherwise result from the warming still in the pipeline so that M & W's «zero emission» plot would immediately go flat?

«Climate models can easily make assumptions about reductions in future greenhouse gas emissions and project the implications, but they do this with no rational basis for human responses,» Gross said.

So, what does a fact check reveal of China's modern climate change due to human CO2 emissions?

Renewables are the new frontier of energy that does not pollute and that governments around the world are exploiting to curb carbon dioxide emissions harmful to humans and the environment.

And it doesn't change the fundamental fact that human emissions of CO ₂ are almost certainly responsible for more than 100 % of the observed warming, once the effect of aerosols is accounted for.

Given that impacts don't scale linearly — that's true both because of the statistics of normal distributions, which imply that (damaging) extremes become much more frequent with small shifts in the mean, and because significant breakpoints such as melting points for sea ice, wet - bulb temperatures too high for human survival, and heat tolerance for the most significant human food crops are all «in play» — the model forecasts using reasonable emissions inputs ought to be more than enough for anyone using sensible risk analysis to know that we making very bad choices right now.

I am very skeptical that on a global population level, humans will bother to do anything other than lip service when it comes to addressing climate change and the changes to our lifestyle required to significantly reduce our emissions, until it is far too late.

By the way, I'd just like to mention that I am far happier to be arguing about the comparative benefits of nuclear power, wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, conservation, efficiency, reforestation, organic agriculture, etc. for quickly reducing CO2 emissions and concentrations, than to be engaged in yet another argument with someone who doesn't believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or that human activities are not causing warming, or that the Earth is cooling, or thinks that AGW is a «liberal» conspiracy to destroy capitalism, etc..

Do these papers address the fact that CO2 and methane will continue to enter the atmosphere through means other than human emissions?

The thing though with these low - sulfur fuels, the study also found, is that while they do reduce total particle emissions, the particles that do remain tend to remain in the air longer... Which is where they post a threat to human health and affect climate.

As such, everything, including the way press releases are written, should be done not in any business as usual manner but in ways to help humans reduce their GHG emissions ASAP.

Since meaningful diminution of global CO2 emission is either technologically impossible or is beyond the amount of sacrifice that the human race is willing to undertake, why does the IPCC absolutely refuse to even consider looking into means to counteract the effect of CO2?

Terrell Johnson, reporting on a recent NASA publication concluding that deep ocean temperatures have not increased since 2005 (http://www.weather.com/science/environment/news/deep-ocean-hasnt-warmed-nasa-20141007): «While the report's authors say the findings do not question the overall science of climate change, it is the latest in a series of findings that show global warming to have slowed considerably during the 21st century, despite continued rapid growth in human - produced greenhouse gas emissions during the same time.»

(2) Prudence requires us to mitigate global warming, even if we are not sure it is being caused by human emissions (and we are sure, and this new skeptical study does not reduce that high level of certainty).

The destruction of mountains, streams, rivers and groundwater, the destruction of land laid waste by strip - mining, the loss of wildlife in these areas, the human illnesses and premature deaths that result from these practices especially in Appalachia, the CO2 emissions and resulting climate change along with the havoc this causes — all of these are externalities that do not enter into the price companies pay to mine the stuff or the costs we pay to turn on the a.c.

You seem to be the only one who doesn't understand his very clear explanation of what he means by it --(a) large enough positive feedback (s) that it (or they) exceeds the total amount of CO2 equivalent of all human ghg emissions.

The biomethane that fuels the Bio-Bus is generated from sewage and food waste (waste which is unfit for human consumption), and because the bus» engine produces lower emissions while burning biomethane than conventional diesel does, it could not only help improve air quality, but also help to prove the case for more waste - to - fuel projects.

While I am still comfortable with my argument that «human inertia» is the prime explanation for a long response time for doing anything about greenhouse gas emissions, I am very wary of efforts by California and the U.K. to stick their necks out on carbon reductions.

That is why the annual CO2 increase in the atmosphere also varies greatly each year, and this short - term variation is not mainly caused by variations in our emissions (so a record CO2 increase in the atmosphere in an El Niño year does not mean that human emissions have surged in that year).

For decades, we humans apparently (somehow) thought that, because carbon dioxide emissions are invisible to the naked eye, they either don't matter or aren't really there.

Millar et al. wrote the confusing sentence: «in the mean CMIP5 response cumulative emissions do not reach 545GtC until after 2020, by which time the CMIP5 ensemble - mean human - induced warming is over 0.3 °C warmer than the central estimate for human - induced warming to 2015».

To argue, or even suggest, that [human action, including alterations in landscapes and emissions of greenhouse gases] «can»» or even doesn't, or even «may not» affect climate is in essence to argue against the very basic of geophysics and chemistry itself.

What is clearly needed is an immediate «feedback» of quick reductions of human carbon emissions, but that does not seem much in evidence after the latest farce in Warsaw.

University of Florida researcher Edward Schuur says he doesn't expect permafrost greenhouse gas emission to trump anthropogenic (human - caused) greenhouse gas emissions anytime soon, however they could become «an important amplifier of climate change.»

Conservative think tanks that once championed geoengineering as easier and cheaper than cutting emissions have now all aligned with the view that the human impact on climate is so small that we don't even have to worry about it.

Because, in her own words, «It's tragic that the United States is not leading the effort to do what humans can do to reduce carbon emissions, to respect the ocean, [and] to respect the atmosphere.»

On a year - to - year basis there does not appear to be any direct correlation between human CO2 emissions and CO2 concentration: the annual increase in CO2 varies between 15 % and 90 % of the CO2 emitted by humans.

Logically, if the warming back then was caused by human emissions of CO2 it would not have stopped in 1996 — 1998 because humans didn't stop emitting CO2.

«His current research shows human emissions contribute less than 18 ppm to the present 410 ppm, and, therefore, do not cause climate change.»

Action to reduce greenhouse emissions is one of the most urgent and pressing concerns that humans can do at the moment.

Come the cold season, whenever there is some type of strong storm system near the U.S. Eastern Seaboard — be it a Nor» easter, a blizzard, or ex-hurricane Sandy — you don't have to look very hard to find someone who will tell you that this weather is «consistent with» expectations of climate change resulting from human greenhouse gas emissions.

Humans don't just have to worry about the greenhouse - emissions impacts that get nearly all of the attention, such as the hotly debated and hard - to - predict effects on hurricane activity in the United States.

And you ask:... What does Singer say about attempts to control other GHG emissions, or other human activies?

Again, I am not disagreeing that humans are a major source of CO2 emissions, but I do fault your conclusion that you know humans are definately the source for all the increases in atmospheric CO2.

Testable version of Null Hypothesis popular in recent years: If humans do not change current CO2 emission rates, the earth climate will experience a «hockey stick» increase in temperature.

Considering the IPCC indicates that human CO2 only represents 4 % of all CO2 emissions, do you think the atmosphere distinguishes between human CO2 and natural CO2?

This explanation obviously did not fit in with the «consensus view» that climate is forced only by human emissions.

If humans don't act to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases, Gore contends, the deaths caused by climate change will double in 25 years to 300,000 people a year, and more than a million species worldwide could be driven to extinction in half a century.