Sentences with phrase «impacts of global warming using»

We assess climate impacts of global warming using ongoing observations and paleoclimate data.

We assess climate impacts of global warming using ongoing observations and paleoclimate data.

Not exact matches

The LCA examined the effects of a 1 kilogram industry - average corrugated product manufactured in 2014 on seven environmental impact indicators: global warming potential (greenhouse gas emissions), eutrophication, acidification, smog, ozone depletion, respiratory effects, fossil fuel depletion; and four inventory indicators: water use, water consumption, renewable energy demand, and non-renewable energy demand.

The report found that while disposable nappies used over 2 1/2 years would have a global warming impact of 550 kg of CO2 reusable nappies produced 570 kg of CO2 on average.

«Due to global warming, oil exploration in the Arctic has become feasible along with the shipment of oil through the Northwest Passage, the water body between Canada and the Arctic that used to be frozen throughout the year, but has now become open for navigation in the summer,» noted Boufadel, a professor of civil and environmental engineering who specializes in the impact of oil spills on coastal regions and, more generally, on oil behavior in diverse environments.

The findings also suggest that previous techniques using satellites to measure drought stress in rainforests may be missing dire impacts of a warming global climate, which many scientists believe will cause more droughts in those critical habitats.

The study is updated regularly and shows that «the average 2006 disposable nappy would result in a global warming impact of approximately 550 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents used over the two and a half years a child is typically in nappies» (diapers).

«For reusable cloth nappies the study states «The baseline scenario based on average washer and drier use produced a global warming impact of approximately 570 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents.»

This piece takes the long view in gauging efforts to stem global warming and its impacts using the tools of diplomacy.

I often hear nuclear advocates proclaiming that «nuclear is THE solution to global warming» and that «no one can be serious about dealing with global warming if they don't support expanded use of nuclear power» but I have never heard any nuclear advocate lay out a plan showing how many nuclear power plants would have to be built in what period of time to have a significant impact on GHG emissions.

Updated, Nov. 10, 2015, 3:04 p.m. A new study in Nature Climate Change, «Revaluating ocean warming impacts on global phytoplankton,» has shown that the method used to calculate phytoplankton loss in the 2010 research greatly overstated plankton losses because of a missing vital factor.

Additionally, excessive use of nitrogenous fertilizer has a significant negative impact on global warming, due to agriculture's contribution of non-carbon dioxide emissions.

Political and economic forces affecting energy use and fuel choice make it unlikely that the CO2 issue will have a major impact on energy policies until convincing observations of the global warming are in hand.

Climate scientists use the same statistical techniques to determine global warming's influence in extreme climate events as public health researchers use to investigate the health impacts of smoking and asbestos exposure.

I am not at all surprised to find climate skeptics preferring Mike's description over mine, given that mine tries to fit the current understanding of the impact of rising CO2 on temperature to the data while Mike's uses gross overfitting to show that one does not need CO2 to explain recent global warming.

Now they're being used by the new IMPACT2C project, which is looking to provide new estimates for the impact and economic cost of climate change in Europe if global warming is limited to the international goal of no more than 2 degrees Celsius, relative to Western European pre-industrial levels.

After the SAR was published, a number of technical papers and special reports have been prepared on the impact of aircraft, land use, technology, and changing emission levels on global warming.

A global phase - down could avoid 1.1 — 1.7 billion metric tons CO2 equivalent (CO2 equivalent is a measure used to compare impacts of greenhouse gases based on their global warming potential in relation to CO2) of GHG emissions per year by 2030, with cumulative emission reductions of nearly 100 billion metric tons CO2 equivalent by 2050.

As we often say here at CleanTechnica, everything has impacts, and while battery EV technology solves a global warming conundrum, it also involves the use of hazardous materials.

Since the ESA forbids the Federal Government from funding any activities which might harm a listed species, why not sue to prevent the ridiculous Federal subsidies on Ethanol, on the grounds that the production, distribution, and use of ethanol have a net negative impact on carbon dioxide emissions when compared with petroleum products, thus accelerating global warming and further endangering the polar bears.

Massive policy impacts need very highly significant evidence Proposed mitigation of majority anthropogenic global warming has very highly significant consequences, demanding massive transformation of our energy generation and use.

Both the type of feedstock and the manner in which it is developed and harvested significantly affect land use and life - cycle global warming emissions impacts of producing power from biomass.

«The CCR - II report correctly explains that most of the reports on global warming and its impacts on sea - level rise, ice melts, glacial retreats, impact on crop production, extreme weather events, rainfall changes, etc. have not properly considered factors such as physical impacts of human activities, natural variability in climate, lopsided models used in the prediction of production estimates, etc..

To add to the bogosity, the IPCC and other serial climate - change exaggerators have attempted to hide the real impact of global warming on the oceans by using a «gazillion - bazillion» Joules to portray the gain in ocean heat.

Can you explain why you think that the sampling used in this study is representative for the question of estimating the impact of increasing UHI on a global - warming measure?

We call on all people and nations to recognize the serious and potentially irreversible impacts of global warming caused by the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants, and by changes in forests, wetlands, grasslands, and other land uses.

In no way can my summary of the research regarding the impact of regional climate change on the Viking civilization and Europe during the Little Ice Age be used to «prove» the current global warming is due to a natural cycle.»

Keep in mind, also, that the data are measured over a time period that largely predates the polarization related to global warming — so using that study as a way to confirm assertions about the impact of the climate wars on public trust in scientists is motivated reasoning in its purest form.

«Causes of differences in model and satellite tropospheric warming rates» «Comparing tropospheric warming in climate models and satellite data» «Robust comparison of climate models with observations using blended land air and ocean sea surface temperatures» «Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends» «Reconciling warming trends» «Natural variability, radiative forcing and climate response in the recent hiatus reconciled» «Reconciling controversies about the «global warming hiatus»»

However, more recent research modelling the impacts of using microbubbles to address global warming found that the technique would not affect ocean primary productivity, a measure of the activity of primary producers.

We consider several important climate impacts and use evidence from current observations to assess the effect of 0.8 °C warming and paleoclimate data for the effect of larger warming, especially the Eemian period, which had global mean temperature about +2 °C relative to pre-industrial time.

«Climate science» as it is used by warmists implies adherence to a set of beliefs: (1) Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations will warm the Earth's surface and atmosphere; (2) Human production of CO2 is producing significant increases in CO2 concentration; (3) The rate of rise of temperature in the 20th and 21st centuries is unprecedented compared to the rates of change of temperature in the previous two millennia and this can only be due to rising greenhouse gas concentrations; (4) The climate of the 19th century was ideal and may be taken as a standard to compare against any current climate; (5) global climate models, while still not perfect, are good enough to indicate that continued use of fossil fuels at projected rates in the 21st century will cause the CO2 concentration to rise to a high level by 2100 (possibly 700 to 900 ppm); (6) The global average temperature under this condition will rise more than 3 °C from the late 19th century ideal; (7) The negative impact on humanity of such a rise will be enormous; (8) The only alternative to such a disaster is to immediately and sharply reduce CO2 emissions (reducing emissions in 2050 by 80 % compared to today's rate) and continue further reductions after 2050; (9) Even with such draconian CO2 reductions, the CO2 concentration is likely to reach at least 450 to 500 ppm by 2100 resulting in significant damage to humanity; (10) Such reductions in CO2 emissions are technically feasible and economically affordable while providing adequate energy to a growing world population that is increasingly industrializing.

For quantitative results, I recommend using the polynomial cointegration methodology used by Beenstock et al. 2012 Polynomial cointegration tests of anthropogenic impact on global warming M. Beenstock, Y. Reingewertz, and N. Paldor Earth Syst.

After using World Earth Day to warn about the impact the changing climate is already having on the US, [Obama] used his annual stand - up routine in front of White House journalists to rant against his «stupid, short - sighted, irresponsible» climate skeptic opponents who throw snowballs in the Senate to illustrate global warming isn't happening.

The most widely used metric of global warming — global surface temperatures — indicates that the rate of global warming has slowed drastically and that the duration of the hiatus in global warming is unusual during a period when global surface temperatures are allegedly being warmed from the hypothetical impacts of manmade greenhouse gases.

Last year, on behalf of the U.S. Global Change Research Program, an expert team of scientists summarized the science of climate change and the impacts of climate change on the United States, now and in the future, and called the evidence of a warming climate «unequivocal,» primarily due to the use of fossil fuels — coal, oil, and gas — and the loss of forests.

The researchers used data on earlier warm periods in Earth's history to estimate climate impacts as a function of global temperature, climate models to simulate global warming, and satellite data to verify ongoing changes.

Although the books strikes me as a little text - heavy for the younger members of that set, it's meant to be one that teachers and students use together to explore how scientists gather data about the natural world, and analyze it for clues on global warming's progress and impacts.

Whether or not global warming is entirely or largely due to human use of carbon for fuel, the reduction of the dependence on carbon makes sense for reducing asthma in children; reducing black lung disease; reducing the production of coal ashes, residues, and effluents; reducing the impact of carbon greenhouse gasses; reducing pipeline failures; reducing coal and oil surface transport accidents; reducing pipeline - related warfare; and reducing air pollution.

«the largest impact on global warming was caused by the processing of LDPE (low - density polyethylene, a thermoplastic made from the monomer ethylene) used in tampon applicators as well as in the plastic back - strip of a sanitary napkin requiring high amounts of fossil fuel generated energy.

Such focus on energy efficiency makes a lot of sense since the vast majority of the global warming impact from air conditioning and refrigeration is due to indirect emissions related to energy use.

We may have to implement a program worldwide that studies and monitors all projects and consumer products for their impact on global warming in a manner not unlike the method used for measuring the economics and market abilities of present day consumer products and activities.

Eichler, T., D. Rind, and S. Zebiak, 2006: Impact of global warming on ENSO variability using the coupled giss GCM / ZC model.

Scientist Uses Seed Diversity, Sustainable Farming Practices to Save Cuban Agriculture 6 Ways Agriculture Impacts Global Warming Stopping Deforestation, Greening Agriculture Better Than Carbon Capture & Storage, UNEP Report Says A Tale of Two Will Allens: «Industrial Agriculture One of Most Polluting & Dangerous Industries» Sustainable Agriculture Leaders Recognized By Natural Resources Defense Council's Growing Green Awards Peak Oil and Agriculture: A Farm for the Future Revisited 25 % Reduction in Global Food Production by 2050: Organic Agriculture Part of the Solution Agricultural Land Degradation Increasing, Affecting New Areas: FAO Report

My favorite quote from that paper is: «Because ENSO is the dominant mode of climate variability at interannual time scales, the lack of consistency in the model predictions of the response of ENSO to global warming currently limits our confidence in using these predictions to address adaptive societal concerns, such as regional impacts or extremes (Joseph and Nigam 2006; Power et al. 2006).»

The study, using complex climate modeling software to simulate changes in forest cover and then measuring the impact on global climate, found that northern forests tend to warm the Earth because they absorb a lot of sunlight without losing much moisture.

An alternative approach uses simple climate model projections of global warming under stabilisation to scale AOGCM patterns of climate change assuming unmitigated emissions, and then uses the resulting scenarios to assess regional impacts (e.g., Bakkenes et al., 2006).

If the extra heat in data measured on land is applied to a period 1900 - 2010 — just to get a rough idea of the possible impact — using 35 - 40 % land area as hadcrut does — we get global extra heat of +0,34 to +0,39 K added to the overall warming of the Earth related to the extra heat occurring when measuring from cities, Airports etc..

As I have provided clear reasons to not treat the fact that the globally poorest will suffer most from climate change as a reason to not reduce fossil fuel use, we are now only discussing whether or not mentioning the disproportionate impact of global warming on the poor is more or less likely to persuade people to modify their behaviour and reduce emissions.