Sentences with phrase «increase atmospheric emissions»

Any loss of permafrost would increase atmospheric emissions of carbon dioxide and methane, fuelling further warming.

Not exact matches

This implies that risks are not too big or overarching (like resource scarcity, rising levels of atmospheric CO2, or global warming) but are more focused e.g. extreme weather, increased greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture or from energy use, or a lack of fresh water.

Located near Metro Center at 1200 New York Avenue, N.W., with a primary entrance at 12th and H Streets, N.W., the AAAS building was originally designed to help reduce environmentally harmful atmospheric emissions, increase energy efficiency, and promote good health and comfort for employees.

Record emissions of carbon dioxide mean atmospheric concentrations have reached levels that lead to the highest temperature increases

Certainly, the only way to stop the massive increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is to impose a charge, either on emissions or fuel, and to allow competition to provide the cheapest alternative.

During the early 2000s, environmental scientists studying methane emissions noticed something unexpected: the global concentrations of atmospheric methane (CH4)-- which had increased for decades, driven by methane emissions from fossil fuels and agriculture — inexplicably leveled off.

Elevated mercury emissions also coincided with previously established increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations, indicating CO2 release from volcanic degassing.

However, as the atmospheric CO2 rises — due to the almost exponential increase in emissions from industrial sources — the influence of solar variability on the Earth's climate will most likely decrease, and its relative contribution will be far surpassed by «greenhouse» gases.

As emissions from human activities increase atmospheric carbon dioxide, they, in turn, are modifying the chemical structure of global waters, making them more acidic.

A new analysis using changes in cloud cover over the tropical Indo - Pacific Ocean showed that a weakening of a major atmospheric circulation system over the last century is due, in part, to increased greenhouse gas emissions.

In a study published today in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a team led by atmospheric scientists Logan Mitchell and John Lin report that suburban sprawl increases CO2 emissions more than similar population growth in a developed urban core.

Here we show how a factor of three uncertainty in climate sensitivity introduces even greater uncertainty in allowable increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration and allowable CO2 emissions.

The continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide due to anthropogenic emissions is predicted to lead to significant changes in climate1.

If we continue increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations with emissions from the burning of coal, oil, and gas, the Earth will continue to get hotter.

Empirical data for the CO2 «airborne fraction», the ratio of observed atmospheric CO2 increase divided by fossil fuel CO2 emissions, show that almost half of the emissions is being taken up by surface (terrestrial and ocean) carbon reservoirs [187], despite a substantial but poorly measured contribution of anthropogenic land use (deforestation and agriculture) to airborne CO2 [179], [216].

They also suggest that the documented 30 % increase in global primary productivity over the 20th century has likely enhanced uptake of atmospheric mercury, thereby practically offsetting increasing mercury emissions.

Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are nearly twice as large as is necessary for the measured increase in atmospheric CO2.

• The methanetrack.org website has shown significant increases in atmospheric methane concentrations over Antarctica this austral winter (which I believe are due to increases in methane emissions from the Southern Ocean seafloor due to increases in the temperature of bottom water temperatures), and if this trend continues, then the Southern Hemisphere could be a significant source of additional atmospheric methane (this century).

It leaves only a fairly small amount of warming attributable to CO2 emissions and therefore indicates a low sensitivity to increased atmospheric CO2.

Climate models suggest that human activities, specifically the emission of atmospheric greenhouse gases, may lead to increases in the frequency of severe storms in certain regions of the Northern Hemisphere.

Thus about 43 % of the annual FF + cement emissions of roughly 10Gt (C) increase atmospheric CO2 by about 2ppm, to which should be added an increase due to emissions from Land Use Change.

As NOAA's Mauna Loa measurement of atmospheric methane concentrations are only currently increasing at a rate of approximately 0.25 % per year (or 12.5 % change in 50 - years); how could anyone be concerned that the change in atmospheric methane burden in 50 - years could be 300 % (as per Isaken et al (2011) case 4XCH4; which would require an additional 0.80 GtCH4 / yr of methane emissions on top of the current rate of methane emissions of 0.54 GtCH4 / yr)?

2011) of the present atmospheric methane burden by 2100, or a 50 % increase fifty years primarily due to increase emissions from marshlands and conventional anthropogenic sources.

Ed Dlugokencky of NOAA, who confirmed a couple of weeks ago that recent increases in atmospheric methane were continuing, tells me that the emissions estimates are reasonable, but that the global data is not yet consistent with a large and growing source of Arctic methane....»

The IPCC Third Assessment Report's (TAR's) projections for methane atmospheric concentrations, carbon dioxide emissions and atmospheric concentrations, and resultant temperature increases constitute the greatest fraud in the history of environmental science.

It reiterated the principle of «common but differentiated responsibilities» — which notes the historical responsibility of industrialized («Annex I») countries for virtually all emissions leading to the increase in the global atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gasses.

A new study by Stanford University atmospheric scientist Mark Jacobson has revealed that worsening air pollution and higher carbon dioxide emissions go hand - in - hand - the results suggest intensifying global warming will increase the number of smog - related deaths.

Thus, if the absorption of the infrared emission from atmospheric greenhouse gases reduces the gradient through the skin layer, the flow of heat from the ocean beneath will be reduced, leaving more of the heat introduced into the bulk of the upper oceanic layer by the absorption of sunlight to remain there to increase water temperature.

With a lifetime of ~ 10 years, spreading emissions over 30 - year period would of course reduce the peak atmospheric burden (though CH4 lifetime would presumably increase with higher CH4 concentration).

The fundamental flaw in the article is in inducing the reader to believe that it would require tripling the gross vegetative uptake of the entire planet to offset the net carbon atmospheric increase, while using figures for the net vegetative uptake and the gross emissions.

Future projections show that, for most scenarios assuming no additional GHG emission reduction policies, atmospheric concentrations of GHGs are expected to continue climbing for most if not all of the remainder of this century, with associated increases in average temperature.

But I think it at least illustrates the point, which is that, while emissions have indeed been on an accelerating curve, the increase in atmospheric concentration did indeed start back around the beginning of the 19th century — not in the 1950s.

Since this graph was prepared, anthropogenic emissions and the atmospheric CO2 content have increased further, see Figs 4 and 5, but I like the simplicity of this graph.

Instead he was pointing to the trajectory of increasing CO2 emissions that continue to add to atmospheric concentrations.

Note also that there appears — already started — to be a likely increase in drought frequency with atmospheric warming and associated acceleration of the hydrologic cycle, assuming continued greenhouse gas emissions.

To contend that rapidly rising temperature in the Arctic — both atmospheric and seabed — do not currently pose a serious risk of increased CH4 emissions this century is equally misleading.

It is misleading to refer to CO2 emissions that do not increase atmospheric concentration by 100 percent of their value as «missing».

Climate alarm depends on several gloomy assumptions — about how fast emissions will increase, how fast atmospheric concentrations will rise, how much global temperatures will rise, how warming will affect ice sheet dynamics and sea - level rise, how warming will affect weather patterns, how the latter will affect agriculture and other economic activities, and how all climate change impacts will affect public health and welfare.

Human emissions equate to an increase of 4.5 ppmv, yet atmospheric CO2 only increases on average by 2.2 ppmv.

If Mackay means by this that only a small amount of the ~ 39 % increase in atmospheric CO2 since «pre-industrial» times is directly attributable to human CO2 emissions, I'd say this sounds much too low (but I have not asked Mackay whether or not that is what he had in mind and, if so, what his basis is).

The 39 % increase is in atmospheric concentration since «pre-industrial» times (not emissions).

«According to the cover story in Nature, the fires in Indonesia released upwards of 2.57 gigatonnes of carbon, 40 percent of the mean carbon emissions released annually from fossil fuels, and «contributing greatly to the largest annual increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration detected since records began in 1957.

It is predicted that if our current emissions stay the same, our atmospheric temperature will increase by another 3.21 degrees Celsius by 2050 (3).

But if you think that that's a causal relationship, think again: about 75 % of «conservatives» (individuals with political outlooks to the «right» of the mean on the same scale) know that scientists believe CO2 emissions increase atmospheric temperatures, too.

All of the atmospheric increase is therefore attributable to mans emissions.

This would be helpful in calculating the atmospheric concentration at which CO2 would cease to increase if emissions were naturally (or forcibly) capped at X % higher levels than today.

Combustion of coal, oil, and natural gas, and to a lesser extent deforestation, land - cover change, and emissions of halocarbons and other greenhouse gases, are rapidly increasing the atmospheric concentrations of climate - warming gases.

While working as a journalist I also pointed out in an Australian daily (as part of a book review, I think) the problem that, at first glance, there is no way industrial emissions could cause the measured increased in atmospheric CO2.

It is possible that the observed annual increases in atmospheric CO2 are almost entirely natural and that humanmade emissions are practically irrelevant.

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.