Sentences with phrase «know about carbon dioxide»

Not exact matches

I don't know much about kombucha, but if there's yeast, the yeast will be fermenting the sugar and turning it into carbon dioxide,.

He wants to know why Earth's global climate models break down on Venus, which has an atmosphere composed of 97 percent carbon dioxide — and what that reveals about the hidden fine - tunings of Earth models.

Given what scientists know about the Red Planet's atmosphere, these clouds likely consist of either carbon dioxide or water - based ice crystals.

Many of his mistakes are big ones: he bungles the issues involving reserves and resources that are critical to his core argument about oil remaining cheap; he drastically misleads his readers about the extent to which sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from coal - burning have been reduced; he trivializes the climate - change risks from coals carbon dioxide emissions by suggesting we know the impacts will be worth only 0.64 cents per kilowatt - hour.

7It is particularly ironic that Lomborg would offer such a ridiculously precise estimate of the cost of the impacts of climate change from carbon dioxide emissions, inasmuch as the entire thrust of his books chapter on «global warming» is that practically nothing about the effects of greenhouse gases is known with certainty.

RICHLAND, Wash. — As the Arctic warms, tons of carbon locked away in Arctic tundra will be transformed into the powerful greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane, but scientists know little about how that transition takes place.

«If you know carbon dioxide is a «greenhouse gas» but think it kills the things that live in greenhouses,» Kahan said, «then it's safe to say you don't know much about climate science.»

When the debate gets to that crux, here are some crucial, verifiable facts — with citations — people need to know about human - generated carbon dioxide and its effect on global warming.

Hales» pioneering research in ocean carbon chemistry underlies much of what we know about the role carbon dioxide from fossil fuel emissions plays in changing the chemistry of Northwest seas.

There are some crucial, verifiable facts — with citations — about human - generated carbon dioxide and its effect on global warming people need to know and understand at

Updated, 8:38 p.m. There are new revelations from the continuing InsideClimate News investigation of what the oil industry knew about the potential climate impacts of carbon dioxide from fuel burning even as it sought delays in related national and international policies.

«It's incredibly good to see people in these streets here and better to know that for every one of them there's hundreds more in every part of world, marching, holding vigils today,» said Bill McKibben, the American environmental writer who now leads 350.org, an international group promoting a low threshold for carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (350 parts per million was the concentration of the heat - trapping gas about 20 years ago; it's about 387 now).

In fact, that all things green love carbon - dioxide rich environments is the ONLY thing we KNOW about the effects of increase CO2 levels, other than the fact that higher and higher levels of CO2 produce increasingly lesser and lesser amounts of heating due to the «greenhouse effect».

The poll found that nearly 70 percent, or 69 percent, of respondents were either unaware of Obama's so - called Clean Power Plan, which, if implemented, would reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants 32 percent by 2030, or knew very little about the new climate regulations.

All he knows is what IPCC has been touting about carbon dioxide, to them the chief greenhouse gas on this planet.

We know the planet will warm between about 1.5 and 4.5 °C in response to the increased greenhouse effect from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide (the «climate sensitivity»).

But in Issues, analysts have identified a more fundamental problem — the social cost of carbon dioxide is the wrong guide to follow — and they proposed an alternative method that better reflects what is known about long - term effects of climate change and how these effects should be valued by today's decision - makers.

Acknowledging that nerds — you know, the guys and gals who invented the microchip and the PC and the smartphone — actually do have a grasp of scientific fact, which leads them to take seriously the problem of historically unprecedented carbon dioxide emissions and the idiocy of rewriting school science textbooks to include dogma about creationism and intelligent design, is a disastrous dead end for conservatives.»

He wants to know about the «incremental buildup» of carbon dioxide.

If you want to know about the Earth's «balance» than it is useful to know that the release of carbon dioxide comes in part from its several hundred active volcanoes, from forest fires, and from the many animals, including humans, who exhale it.

He also suggested people were lying about severe weather getting worse (it is not), the undeniable benefits of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and a whole array of related facts that, if more widely known, would embarrass climate alarmists.

The Marshall Institute was founded in 1984 by three outstanding scientists, each of whom knew more about carbon dioxide and climate than 97 % of the IPCC authors combined:

«the cooling trend observed since 1940 is real enough... but not enough is known about the underlying causes to justify any sort of extrapolation,» and «by the turn of the century, enough carbon dioxide will have been put into the atmosphere to raise the temperature of earth half a degree.»

I do know a few things about basic physics and the greenhouse effect, so dumping large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere strikes me as unwise.

«About» ought to be in italics because we really don't know how much cooling is caused by other emissions, like particulate aerosols that go up the smokestack along with the carbon dioxide.

When looking over long periods of time, the external drivers of climate — things like how much carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere trapping heat, and how many trees have been cut down and are no longer sequestering greenhouse gases — can be used to make statistical predictions about the climate, Schmidt said.

And in either scenario, I want to know what the models can say about the hysteresis in the system: how much ice lost at higher carbon - dioxide levels does not come back at lower ones.

But he no longer thinks global warming is caused by our carbon dioxide and so isn't concerned about his or any one else's carbon footprint.

I don't know about the maths or the climate science, but I see carbon dioxide continuing its steady rise, but no warming in fifteen years, and I reckon it's time to invoke the shades of the great Feynman.

In 2006 I went to a talk by a physical chemist who talked about how mass and heat transport are coupled: you can't calculate the flux of carbon dioxide from water to atmosphere and vice versa just by looking at the concentrations, you need to know the relative temperatures too.

Climate models encapsulate what we know about how the Sun's rays travel through the atmosphere and how heat from the surface of the Earth gets absorbed by clouds, water vapour and, of course, carbon dioxide.

Scheduled speakers include some of the nation's best - known global warming skeptics, including Anthony Watts, a television weatherman; Timothy Ball, a former University of Winnipeg professor who has been sued for libel by Michael Mann, a prominent mainstream climate scientist; and Alan Carlin, a former Environmental Protection Agency analyst who claims he was muzzled when he raised questions about the agency's finding that atmospheric carbon dioxide is a threat to human health and the environment.

The contribution is known to good accuracy, to be about 5.35 W / m ^ 2 additional forcing per natural logarithm of carbon dioxide concentrations.

«The underlying significance of all this is that the rate of carbon dioxide increase is higher than ever at the moment, year after year now it's been more than 2 ppm per year,» said Pieter Tans, a senior scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Climate Monitoring and Diagnostics Laboratory in Boulder, Colo. «The increase is manmade... This is one of the known things about climate change.»

If you write that the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is «widely accepted as being about 350 parts per million», and walk away, it doesn't do much good for me to answer that it is known with high confidence to be between 385 and 390 parts per million (in 2009, on a global annual average).