Sentences with phrase «level of co2»

I am not disputing the fact that mankind has increased the level of CO2.

«The basis of most of the IPCC conclusions on anthropogenic causes and on projections of climatic change is the assumption of low level of CO2 in the pre-industrial atmosphere.

However it does still mean that temperatures rise — and at any given level of CO2 forcing this effect will mean a higher equilibrium temperature.

Plants in all their glory revel in a much higher level of CO2.

Possible conclusions could be that the delay is 12 months but even you yourself accept it is only 6 months so that is not the case, also if there was a delay of 12 months, 24 months, 36 months etc then you would see a discrepency between the two measurements ie the SH would continually record a lower level of CO2 than the NH once again i do not believe this to be the case.

And yet LOL, we are still far below the ideal level of CO2 used by greenhouses to maximize plant growth (1000 ppm).

Many scientists say the pause, and new research into factors such as smoke particles and ocean cycles, has made them rethink what is termed «climate sensitivity» — how much the world will warm for a given level of CO2.

We won't even be able to have an effect on the level of CO2 to any significant degree.

Night vision which use a special type glass which transparent to longwave IR can «see» thermal heat and the CO2 in atmosphere is mostly transparent [high level of CO2 from a fire doesn't significantly block the signal - nor higher concentration of CO2 in urban areas or +1000 ppm CO2 of normal indoor air.]

It can't happen, even if we burn all the fossil fuels, because we can't get to a higher level of CO2 than originally existed when the fossil fuels were created.

The growth of the Andes and Himalayas over the past 50 million years is likely to be the reason that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere declined to the relatively low levels seen in pre-industrial times.

The level of CO2 we now have in the atmosphere is the result of the burning of fossil fuels (plus some other emissions sources).

guessing or wishing for some theoretically ideal level of CO2 in the atmosphere is a waste of time.

Commercial greenhouses run at up to about four times the outside level of CO2 to boost plant growth.

If humans dig up and burn coal, oil and gas, they returning much of this carbon back to the atmosphere, causing the level of CO2 to rise.

When the Earth's surface warms enough, the heat that it emits will reach the level of the CO2 «spillway», and the Earth's heat balance will be restored — given enough time.

According to Hansen et al 19841, Bony et al 20062, and the IPCC AR4 report3, the direct effect of doubling the level of CO2 amounts to 1.2 °C (i.e. before feedbacks).

When the level of CO2 in the bloodstream gets too low the neural response to breathe is no longer activated.

If we want to preserve a world similar to the one in which human civilization developed, scientists have concluded that we need to stabilize the level of CO2 below 350 parts per million (ppm).

We also know the bottom limit - complete icing, that is, the «white ground» when the level of CO2 concentration was insignificant - less than 200 ppm.

Temperature determines the equilibrium level of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Take a look at this and interpret at what level of CO2 various glaciers can exist.

If the level of CO2 in the atmosphere suddenly doubled, the initial warming over 10 years would be less than a degree, in part because the build - up takes time and also because the oceans slowly take up the heat, and act as a buffer.

«Some» level of CO2 in the atmosphere IS NEEDED to support significant global grain production.

Assessment of the dangerous level of CO2, and the dangerous level of warming, is made difficult by the inertia of the climate system.

We might do well to ask the question, Does nature have a preferred level of CO2?

If volcanos [or whatever] were emitting 1 trillion tons per year [something we probably should assume has never occurred in the history of earth] it then takes 5100 years this constant level of CO2 emission to make 1 atm of CO2.

Giessen: Last but not least, the cornerstone of the piek level of CO2 around 1942.

This is due to the presence of life, particularly plant life, which will automatically multiply in micro and macro forms in an orgy of feeding and reproducing, until the level of CO2 no longer supports this activity, at which point they stabilize, then die off.

When one uses the new data to estimate the level of CO2 released for all of Indonesia in 2006 — a year with a weak El Nino, in which rainfall was relatively low — one comes up with a figure of up to 900 million tons.

On this basis, it is impossible to draw a conclusion that there is a level of CO2 that we are in danger of reaching (from human activity) that would be detrimental to life (toxic) OTHER THAN through rapid climate or environmental changes.

Increasing or decreasing the level of CO2 will not effect this process.

I was responding to the original point which was the issue of whether there was a (maximum) level of CO2 that could be considered harmful (toxic was the word used in MacViolinist's post) irrespective of warming, and that therefore could be used as a guide for action.

This level of CO2 will be trapping more heat; causing climate change at a...

That in turn is the result of the forcing produced by an exponentially increasing level of CO2 starting around 1940.

I will not here be a judge, but I think its fair to show that Becks data to some degree matches my expectations, even though the level of CO2 appears high.

+0,15 K global temperature anomaly more to achieve the same level of CO2 rise / year as it did in 1979.

Such high level of CO2 in atmosphere is something that humanity will have to live with.

No im not talking about the level of CO2 as result of temperature.

Repeating, near the poles, we should see much increasing temperatures because the same well - mixed worldwide level of CO2 would greatly increase the local GHG concentration near the poles - > greatly increasing the (predicted) temperature increase; while near the equator, the same increase in CO2 means little.

The current level of CO2 is 400 parts per million which means there is one cubic foot of CO2 for every 2500 cubic feet of air.

He references the CDIAC that «the total man - made contribution to the level of CO2 to date should only be calculated as approx 40 % of the rise in CO2 since 1850, thus amounting to 11 % of the current total of 390 ppm».

The preindustrial level of CO2 was about 280 parts per million by volume.

Drawing on improved paleoclimate records and current global observations has prompted the authors to reach new conclusions about what constitutes a safe level of CO2.

I'm not a climate scientist, but as I understand the situation, the level of CO2 has risen by the above mentioned 39 % due to human activities.

Atmosphere is — say — stable at 2x the previous level of CO2.

A recent one claimed that even the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere is acidifying our blood, whereas NASA a few years ago did a study of men in a submarine under conditions with CO2 levels 20 - 30 times what we have now and it was shown that our blood adjusts within a week.

The level of CO2 is causing melting, and unless we reduce that level those ice sheets will disappear.

Prior to now, in the 1970s similar alarmism directed against nuclear power, resulted to the relatively high level of CO2 emissions we have now.

Farther into history, during the Cretaceous the level of CO2 in the atmosphere was (depending of the source) 3 - 10 times current and temperatures were far higher.