Sentences with phrase «much atmospheric carbon»

Coal is responsible for as much atmospheric carbon dioxide as the other fossil fuels combined, and its reserves make coal even more important for the long run.

To make sense of what will happen in the next decades, climate scientists urgently need accurate estimates of how much atmospheric carbon will be sequestered in the soils and water, and how much will linger in the atmosphere.

They were Jorge Sarmiento, an oceanographer at Princeton University who constructs ocean - circulation models that calculate how much atmospheric carbon dioxide eventually goes into the world's oceans; Eileen Claussen, executive director of the Pew Center for Global Climate Change in Washington, D.C.; and David Keith, a physicist with the University of Calgary in Alberta who designs technological solutions to the global warming problem.

Not exact matches

A crucial reason why the study of freshwater acidification has lagged until now is because determining how atmospheric carbon affects these ecosystems requires complex modeling, and is much less clear than that occurring in oceans, according to study author Linda Weiss, an aquatic ecologist at Ruhr University Bochum in Germany.

Their results suggest a drop of as much as 10 degrees for fresh water during the warm season and 6 degrees for the atmosphere in the North Atlantic, giving further evidence that the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide and Earth's surface temperature are inextricably linked.

Although the earth has experienced exceptional warming over the past century, to estimate how much more will occur we need to know how temperature will respond to the ongoing human - caused rise in atmospheric greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide.

The seven - day rainfall total from Harvey was as much as 40 percent higher than rainfall from a similar storm would have been decades ago, before human activity caused atmospheric carbon dioxide levels to spike, according to a study published yesterday in Geophysical Research Letters.

Since methane can cause about 20 times as much atmospheric warming as carbon dioxide, curbing methane would help slow global warming.

«Human influence is so dominant now,» Baker asserts, «that whatever is going to go on in the tropics has much less to do with sea surface temperatures and the earth's orbital parameters and much more to do with deforestation, increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide and global warming.»

The planet also passed a grim milestone: an atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration of 400 parts per million, including remote Antarctica, which hasn't seen that much CO2 for 4 million years.

We have no idea, for example, how much of the atmospheric carbon being absorbed by the surface of the oceans reaches the bottom, nor how long that takes.

The World Energy Outlook suggests that unambitious pledges made at last year's United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change conference in Copenhagen will mean that much tougher action is needed after 2020 if the world is to meet the goal of limiting atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) to 450 parts per million (p.p.m.).

There is, therefore, much current interest in how coccolithophore calcification might be affected by climate change and ocean acidification, both of which occur as atmospheric carbon dioxide increases.

Armed with this information, scientists will be able to do a much better job forecasting atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations in the future, he said, and in understanding the role of human activities on the carbon cycle.

Much study has focused on the effects these rising carbon dioxide levels could have on weather patterns and global temperatures, but could elevated atmospheric CO2 levels negatively affect the nutritional value of the food we grow?

Through further work Arrhenius determined that if you halved the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide, the temperature of Europe could drop by as much as 4 - 5 °C.

These changes alter the biospheric carbon cycle, and can significantly affect how much carbon is cycled through plant matter, in turn causing changes in atmospheric CO2.

The ocean, with around 38,000 gigatons (Gt) of carbon (1 gigaton = 1 billion tons), contains 16 times as much carbon as the terrestrial biosphere, that is all plant and the underlying soils on our planet, and around 60 times as much as the pre-industrial atmosphere, i.e., at a time before people began to drastically alter the atmospheric CO2 content by the increased burning of coal, oil and gas.

The more correct statement is that the planet has never before seen atmospheric carbon raise so much, so quickly, without a mass extinction event.

The release of this trapped methane is a potential major outcome of a rise in temperature; it is thought that this is a main factor in the global warming of 6 °C that happened during the end - Permian extinction as methane is much more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide (despite its atmospheric lifetime of around 12 years, it has a global warming potential of 72 over 20 years and 25 over 100 years).

Ozone doesn't get as much attention, but atmospheric ozone is blamed for forest dieback, which in turn reduces carbon sequestration.

And, the IPCC projection is probably too high because it was driven by a collection of climate models which new science indicates produce too much warming given a rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.

There is a theory that the rising of the Himalayas and the Tibetan plateau provided the barrier that made the South Asian monsoons possible, and a secondary theory that the increased rainfall on the freshly raised mountain slopes weathered so much rock that the planet's levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide took a dive, to precipitate 30 million years of Ice Ages.

In view of the much larger quantities and absorbing power of atmospheric water vapour it was concluded that the effect of carbon dioxide was probably negligible.»

If you accept that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that human fossil fuel use is now the dominant contributor to atmospheric CO2 changes, then knowing how much global temperatures respond to increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is important for understanding the future climate.

Solomon argues that «long - term temperature change remains primarily associated with total cumulative carbon emissions, owing to [their] much longer atmospheric residence time.»

A «carbon neutral» bioenergy source would be one that sequestered as much carbon in its growth cycle as it released later when burned as fuel, with the sequestering occurring concurrently with the burning, or nearly so, rather than decades hence, when the negative emissions count for less in stabilizing atmospheric CO2 levels.

Saying «How much warming will a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide actually produce?»

1) How much warming will an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide cause directly?

[T] he author is convinced that recent increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide have contributed much less than 5 % of the recent changes of atmospheric temperature, and will contribute no more than that in the foreseeable future.

We've been moving CO2 out of sequestration (fossil fuels) into the more mobile atmosphere, water, biosphere — and as a result atmospheric concentrations of CO2 will be out of equilibrium until much slower natural processes move the carbon out of those compartments.

Similarly, they produce about twice as much greenhouse carbon dioxide and other atmospheric pollutants;

Although the earth has experienced exceptional warming over the past century, to estimate how much more will occur we need to know how temperature will respond to the ongoing human - caused rise in atmospheric greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide.

Our DOE Comment focuses entirely on the new science concerning the equilibrium climate sensitivity, that is, how much the earth's average surface temperature will increase from a doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide content.

Also, while we have good atmospheric measurements of other key greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, we have poor measurements of global water vapor, so it is not certain by how much atmospheric concentrations have risen in recent decades or centuries, though satellite measurements, combined with balloon data and some in - situ ground measurements indicate generally positive trends in global water vapor.»

Secretary Kerry should not use the SEIS to duck the significance of the U.S. National Interest Determination for whether, or how much, of what has been termed the tar sands «carbon bomb» stays in the ground or is ultimately added to the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide.

Healthy forests play a key role in global ecosystems as they contain much of the terrestrial biodiversity on the planet and act as a net sink for capturing atmospheric carbon.

Furthermore, the discovery of a surprising number of submarine volcanoes highlights the underestimation of global volcanism and provides a loose basis for an estimate that may partly explain ocean acidification and rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels observed last century, as well as shedding much needed light on intensified polar spring melts.

They suggest instead that improved agricultural and forestry practices offer a more natural way to draw down CO2, noting that reforestation of degraded land and improved agricultural practices that retain soil carbon could draw down atmospheric CO2 by as much as 50 ppm.

Today, most scientists agree that too much carbon, deposited in the short term atmospheric account in the form of carbon dioxide, is throwing our world's climate out of kilter.

And this all supports the analysis that the climate is much more sensitive to changes in greenhouse gas emissions and other «forcings» than the IPCC models have been saying and that a doubling of atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide from preindustrial levels to 550 ppm will ultimately warm the planet far more than 3 °C, as NASA's James Hansen argues (see «Long - term» climate sensitivity of 6 °C for doubled CO2).

The carbon chemistry of the surface waters is thus changing much more quickly than can be explained by simple immediate forcing from atmospheric CO2.

This route of consideration entails the inference of what we'll call each respective warmist's primary and secondary gain motivating his allegiance to this objectively insupportable (and factually unsupported) damnfool contention about the adverse effects of anthropogenic atmospheric carbon dioxide and — much more importantly — the political measures being pushed by each such statist sumbeech in order to allegedly ameliorate the tissue - of - lies «externalities» nonsensically asserted to be associated with the complete combustion of petrochemical fuels upon which all of industrial civilization depends for its function.

General circulation models predict that, for a doubling of atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, mean annual air temperatures may rise several degrees over much of the Arctic.

(3) Other cases are described on my Columbia University web site, e.g., Switzerland finances construction of coal plants, Sweden builds them, and Australia exports coal and sets atmospheric carbon dioxide goals so large as to guarantee destruction of much of the life on the planet.

First is that the climate models using by the IPCC are running behind the latest science, and secondly, and quite significantly, the climate models used by the IPCC produce too much warming for a given rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.

Without any warming, even a huge emission of 1000 GT would not raise atmospheric carbon all that much.

Crok is a freelance science writer from The Netherlands and Lewis, an independent climate scientist, was an author on two recent important papers regarding the determination of the earth's equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS)-- that is, how much the earth's average surface temperature will rise as a result of a doubling of the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide.

There are two prominent and undeniable examples of the models» insufficiencies: 1) climate models overwhelmingly expected much more warming to have taken place over the past several decades than actually occurred; and 2) the sensitivity of the earth's average temperature to increases in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations (such as carbon dioxide) averages some 60 percent greater in the IPCC's climate models than it does in reality (according to a large and growing collection of evidence published in the scientific literature).

The bottom line from the new report from the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is that the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) knew, but didn't highlight, the fact that the best available scientific evidence suggests that the earth's climate is much less sensitive to atmospheric carbon dioxide input than the climate models they relied upon to forecast future global warming portray.