Sentences with phrase «know atmospheric levels»

We know atmospheric levels are increasing.

Not exact matches

At a Feb. 7 hearing of Juliana, et al v. United States of America, et al — a case a group of kids, young adults and environmentalists brought in 2015 against the U.S. government — Frank Volpe said he didn't know whether carbon dioxide levels had reached 400 parts per million, a measurement of atmospheric concentration.

But the carbon dynamic in these forests is not fully understood, making it difficult to know how well this plan is reducing atmospheric levels of CO2.

The model suggests atmospheric oxygen was likely at around 10 % of present day levels during the two billion years following the Great Oxidation Event, and no lower than 1 % of the oxygen levels we know today.

Industry attorney tells judge he «does not know» what atmospheric CO2 levels are, even though data from scientists worldwide are crystal clear

The trouble is, ice cores are the gold standard for estimating past atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, and Marchant says the Dry Valley glaciers are the only ones known to contain ice that old.

A well - known example are dinosaurs: Many theories about animal gigantism offer high levels of atmospheric oxygen as an explanation.

Even if we could determine a «safe» level of interference in the climate system, the sensitivity of global mean temperature to increasing atmospheric CO2 is known perhaps only to a factor of three or less.

We know we won't cut all emissions tomorrow, and as noted above, even cutting emissions by 60 - 70 % and keeping atmospheric levels constant has considerable inertia.

The effects on atmospheric carbon levels from landuse changes are highly uncertain, as I'm sure Ruddiman knows.

The EPA report is concerned with the impacts that climate change can have on atmospheric chemistry, and in particular the summertime peaks in urban ground - level ozone which are a well - known and serious health hazard.

We know that the climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from the pre-industrial level of 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv) to 560 ppmv (we're currently at 390 ppmv) will cause 2 — 4.5 °C of warming.

We also know something about the strong relationship between atmospheric CO2 levels and temperature.

No matter how scurrilous the actions of the oil companies, will the plaintiffs be able to show that the actions have resulted in higher atmospheric CO2 levels, rising seas, and significant increased infrastructure costs for the plaintiffs?

In view of the present discussion of the role of carbon dioxide in effecting global temperature I would like to know of any laboratory or bench experiments that show a temperature - CO2 concentration curve within the range of currently measured atmospheric CO2 levels.

The 350 campaign is intent on sparking international movement platformed upon the target of reducing atmospheric CO2 levels to 350 parts per million, or the level scientists deem necessary to maintain human life on the planet as we know it.

On another subject, now that we know from Al Gore's researches, that our SUVs, which keep raising the CO2 levels at Mauna Loa, are the direct cause of the Mediaeval Warm Period (remember that was just 800 years before the present rising CO2 event); we can predict with near certainty, that when everybody who signed on to the Kyoto accords, meets their obligations, resulting in a coming dearth of atmospheric CO2, that is going to directly cause an event which will become known as the little ice age which happened in the 1600 to 1840 time range.

You know, for a little while there I even thought that Bob T himself (who is undoubtedly an interesting fellow) might even be sharp enough to appreciate that the coupling of increased atmospheric CO2 and increased seawater N nutrient levels to produce enhanced cyanobacterial productivity in near surface layers of the oceans would also produce the weather - moderating effects listed above (particularly in the areas where tropical storms are «brewed»).

Karlsson also refers to «natural variability during the Cambrian», but fails to inform his readers that at that time atmospheric carbon dioxide levels exceeded the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm by 15 - times (yes, fifteen times) without any known parallel dangerous global warming.

-- Susan Solomon, Nature The Long Thaw is written for anyone who wishes to know what cutting - edge science tells us about the modern issue of global warming and its effects on the pathways of atmospheric chemistry, as well as global and regional temperatures, rainfall, sea level, Arctic sea - ice coverage, melting of the continental ice sheets, cyclonic storm frequency and intensity and ocean acidification.

WE DO NOT KNOW THE LONG TERM EFFECTS THESE HIGH LEVELS OF ATMOSPHERIC GASES WILL HAVE ON OURSELVES, OUR CHILDREN, our livestock & pets.

The formula is based on known ideas due to Arrhenius in 1896 and Hofmann in 2009 (that the portion of atmospheric CO2 above the preindustrial level is growing exponentially), with the added twist that the oceanic heat sink delays the impact of radiative forcing variations on HadCRUT3 by 15 years, analogously to the overheating of a CPU being delayed by the addition of a heatsink with no fan, what I refer to as the Hansen delay.

It is true that salinity, pH levels, chemical conversions, and the diffusion rate of POC to the bottom of the oceans can affect Henry's law and the uptake of atmospheric CO2, but do we know how much by?

You are right that many parts of the carbon cycle are hardly known, but even the largest cycle, the seasons, doesn't change the atmospheric CO2 levels with more than 6 ppmv for 1 °C change.

We know atmospheric CO2 levels in the region of 350 ppm is relatively safe for the climate.

Even so, Mann said, certain predictions are based on physics and chemistry that are so fundamental, such as the atmospheric greenhouse effect, that the resulting predictions — that surface temperatures should warm, ice should melt and sea level should rise — are robust no matter the assumptions.

Knowing that the total atmospheric carbon level is about 750 Gt, we can calculate the residency time of CO2 in the atmosphere, before it falls into a non-biotic sink.

Restoring open ocean plankton populations to known 1980 levels of health would not only annually sequester at minimum 3 ~ 4 billion tons of atmospheric CO2 (or half our global warming surplus today), it would regenerate tens of billions of tons of missing nourishment for fisheries, seabirds and marine mammals.

I rarely post on this site but feel compelled to based on comment # 13 above, specifically the following paragraph: «Restoring open ocean plankton populations to known 1980 levels of health would not only annually sequester at minimum 3 ~ 4 billion tons of atmospheric CO2 (or half our global warming surplus today), it would regenerate tens of billions of tons of missing nourishment for fisheries, seabirds and marine mammals.»

There is no basis I know of for arguing that the gradual and fairly steady increases in atmospheric CO2 levels would bring about the ENSO fluctuations in the vast Central Pacific Ocean.

So, if you think that through, then for that to be true, in a period in which atmospheric CO2 levels have risen in proportion to human emissions, something else would also have had to be emitting large amounts of CO2 while at the exact same time that we are completely unaware of, and much more strangely, something we don't know about would have to be removing large amounts of CO2, otherwise we would have higher atmospheric levels of CO2 than we currently do.

This reduces the atmospheric pressure at sea level, leading to what is known as «cyclonic behaviour».

Richard, for the last time, the trend in atmospheric CO2 levels since 1958 is not linear, it is slightly exponential with a lot of ups and downs, but no matter what curve you may use to fit the real trend, the increase rate per year doubled over the past 40 years.

«Whilst there are certainly other potential drivers of changes in the climate we know that over the last century we have greatly increased the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and, through detection and attribution analyses, we know that the rising levels of atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases have driven the rise in global temperature,» King said.

We also know that phytoplankton, the base of the oceanic food chain, significantly effects atmospheric oxygen and carbon dioxide levels, despite their decline.

This 2015, we have the technology to know that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are rising at an alarmingly fast rate.

Climate scientists know that the planet is warming, and dangerously, as a consequence of ever higher carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere thanks to changes humans have made to the planet's atmospheric chemistry — and they know it can get worse.

From the atmospheric temperature rise to the acidification of the sea, from ice thickness and extent to sea levels, we really need to continue to know what is going on.

Without speaking to the epistemology, explain to me how it is we «know» this isn't the mechanism that is increasing the atmospheric CO2 levels rather than the relative insignificant anthropological contributions.

For more than a century, climate scientists have known that higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere mean higher atmospheric temperatures.

While we don't know sea level rise in the 21st century, in the long run, sea level was 50 m higher at atmospheric CO2 level of 2x prehistoric (note: we're adding greenhouse gases in addition to carbon dioxide).

It is well known that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels could result in temperature increases of between 1.5 and 4.5 °C, due to fast changes such as snow and ice melt, and the behaviour of clouds and water vapour.

all these optical astronomers, in ALL these years, checking atmospheric infrared levels each day, marking down how much exists each hour, so people can know which experiments can be best done on what days — this studious marking of every measurable parameter of the sky, from the ground, from space --

So, enjoined by a recent reCatcha to «ask mitely,» I will try at least one more time to ask if dashed line on graph # 3 in the recent Nature Geoscience article (by MacDougall, Avis and Weaver) on permafrost melt — taken together with the known fact that there are other carbon (and other) positive feedbacks — mean that, even if we stop all anthropogenic CO2 emissions next year, atmospheric CO2 levels will continue to rise indefinitely?

We know we won't cut all emissions tomorrow, and as noted above, even cutting emissions by 60 - 70 % and keeping atmospheric levels constant has considerable inertia.

For even if the models are proven to be wrong with respect to their predictions of atmospheric warming, extreme weather, glacial melt, sea level rise, or any other attendant catastrophe, those who seek to regulate and reduce CO2 emissions have a fall - back position, claiming that no matter what happens to the climate, the nations of the Earth must reduce their greenhouse gas emissions because of projected direct negative impacts on marine organisms via ocean acidification.

But the basic point is that we know there's enough CO2 in the easily available oil and gas to take us up to the dangerous level of atmospheric CO2.

At a minimum we may conclude that we don't know very well ancient CO2 levels above, say, 1000 ppm and so ought to work harder at avoiding further increases in atmospheric CO2.