Sentences with phrase «much less concentration»

Bitcoin stands in stark contrast with much less concentration although certain early holders boast of large holdings.

Not exact matches

While I agree that much of the research out there for PRP is less than desirable, I think it important to cite to some studies as a counterpoint which do have large numbers, platelet concentrations and control groups.

This is partly due to the current atmosphere containing much less CO2 — approximately 400 ppm (parts per million)-- compared to before the PETM, where the concentration was about 1,000 ppm and partly because we emit carbon into the atmosphere at a much faster rate than during the PETM.

Those effects will only get worse if nothing is done to stop dumping CO2 into the sky, much less to begin to reduce concentrations that have now reached more than 400 parts per million in the air — higher than that breathed by any members of our fellow Homo sapiens in the last 200,000 years.

Titanium is especially useful in mapping and understanding volcanism on the Moon because it varies so much in concentration, from less than 1 weight percent TiO2 to over 15 percent.

While similar in color and flavor to soy sauce, we go for tamari because it's gluten - free, and thanks to the higher concentration of fermented soy beans, is thicker and richer so you will need to use much less.

Because seaweed is at the bottom of the food chain (where it is eaten by other animals), the concentration of toxins in seaweed is much less than in fish or other animals that eat the seaweed.

: But even then, once we talked like — we talked all the time, digestion of those foods is probably not very good and the concentration of those is gonna be much less as opposed to a grass - fed beef.

During the follicular phase (before ovulation), the concentration of progesterone in the bloodstream is less than 1 ng / ml, although still present in much higher amounts than estrogen.

It would be useful to have an artificial concentration of those technologies in a teacher education program... with the anticipation that using those technologies in an environment in which they can be reflective is going to prepare teachers in a much more impactful way than when they are in an environment with less opportunity to reflect.

The chemicals used today for tick control are much less toxic than in the past, and are used in very low concentrations.

In her short review last week, Smith took a swipe at less focused artists: «[Horvath's] long cultivation of aspects of cartooning, overlooked art, patterning and lightweight materials found in much painting today has paid off with a combination of concentration and resonance that remains too rare.»

This actually will be come less relevant as the real shocker seems to have arrived http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php and soon the temperature one re R Spencer Thanks to S Goddard for highlighting the NH ice concentration so much previously the AGW «ers discounted it NB tried posting previous so repeat here

Climate models projecting that much less sunlight will be reflected by low clouds when the climate warms indicate that CO2 concentrations can only reach 470 ppm before the 2 ℃ warming threshold of the Paris agreement is crossed — a CO2 concentration that will probably be reached in the 2030s.

The increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration each year is much less than the natural variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration within each year.

But I stand: CO2 is not positively correlated (much less well correlated) with CO2 concentrations.

Cheers but more specifically... as Ferdinand points out repeatedly, for all the unknowns in the cycle we KNOW the atmospheric concentration of CO2 and we KNOW the human emissions... thus we KNOW that the rise in concentration is less than human emissions and it is in that context that human emissions «look» like much more than a minor player.

And in fact when you look at the scientific literature, it's an interesting disconnect because the modelers who study emissions and how to control those emissions are generally much more comfortable setting goals in terms of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas concentrations because that comes more or less directly out of their models and is much more proximate or more closely connected to what humans actually do to screw up the climate in the first place, which is emit these greenhouse gases.

This is much less than IPCC's estimate of 1.5 to 5 deg C global warming for doubling of CO2 concentration.

$ 56K a year for a PhD with concentrations in no less than four major fields of specialization is not very much.

Whatever value of CS you fancy, according to the reality this is the higher CO2 emission - concentration year for the last 10,000 years with an amount of warming that makes this year with the less ever «amplifying» of warming, meaning that the 2014 regardless of so much CO2 in atmosphere shows no «amplifying» and therefor showing that there is no warming whatsoever but actually the climatic signal is one of cooling, to the extent of it been the higher COOLING CLIMATIC signal for this year than any other year for the last 10,000 years.

Under the less stringent concentration target, there is much greater flexibility for offsetting delayed emissions reductions in developing countries through greater abatement by all countries later in the century.

At 2ppm / year you get a CO2 concentration of 574, still much less that the required 1600ppm (630ppm with accelerating rate of CO2).

But the rate of increase of CO2 has been pretty close to 2 ppm / year, which implies that by the year 2050 the CO2 concentration will be larger by about (50 − 13) years × 2 ppm / year = 74 ppm to give a total concentration of N = 474 ppm, much less than the 1600 ppm needed.

Despite decades of persistent uncertainty over how sensitive the climate system is to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, we now have new satellite evidence which strongly suggests that the climate system is much less sensitive than is claimed by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Other gases, like some of the blowing agents used in some foam insulation products, have much higher global warming potential but less overall effect than CO2 because of their much lower concentrations.

When this demanded trust is then argued to justify painful policies — sold as mitigation, no less — and even more concentration of power, just how much knowledge of the science being sold do you need to smell the miasma surrounding that science?

While the enhancing effect of the increasing CO2 concentration on the greenhouse effect is logarithmic (i.e., increasing less than linearly), the increase in emissions over much of the 21st century is projected to be exponential (i.e., increasing more rapidly than linearly).

Nor are the commitments that have been made even remotely consistent with stabilizing atmospheric concentrations at anywhere close to 2 degrees Celsius, much less 1.5.

The total concentration of carbon dioxide was much lower then and the rate of increase was apparently less.

However using the same technique (Planck - Hottel) for water vapour which has a partial pressure or concentration 100 x that of CO2 the extinction distance is much less at 120m (absorptivity 0.5734).

I would add one further thought to Tamino's analysis showing that when CO2 concentration increases are evaluated on a longer timeframe than 7 years, so that linear and exponential increases can be distinguished, and when the proper analytic method (log transformation) is used to make the distinction, the rise is actually greater than exponential, much less linear.

RealClimate is wonderful, and an excellent source of reliable information.As I've said before, methane is an extremely dangerous component to global warming.Comment # 20 is correct.There is a sharp melting point to frozen methane.A huge increase in the release of methane could happen within the next 50 years.At what point in the Earth's temperature rise and the rise of co2 would a huge methane melt occur?No one has answered that definitive issue.If I ask you all at what point would huge amounts of extra methane start melting, i.e at what temperature rise of the ocean near the Artic methane ice deposits would the methane melt, or at what point in the rise of co2 concentrations in the atmosphere would the methane melt, I believe that no one could currently tell me the actual answer as to where the sharp melting point exists.Of course, once that tipping point has been reached, and billions of tons of methane outgass from what had been locked stores of methane, locked away for an eternity, it is exactly the same as the burning of stored fossil fuels which have been stored for an eternity as well.And even though methane does not have as long a life as co2, while it is around in the air it can cause other tipping points, i.e. permafrost melting, to arrive much sooner.I will reiterate what I've said before on this and other sites.Methane is a hugely underreported, underestimated risk.How about RealClimate attempts to model exactly what would happen to other tipping points, such as the melting permafrost, if indeed a huge increase in the melting of the methal hydrate ice WERE to occur within the next 50 years.My amateur guess is that the huge, albeit temporary, increase in methane over even three or four decades might push other relevent tipping points to arrive much, much, sooner than they normally would, thereby vastly incresing negative feedback mechanisms.We KNOW that quick, huge, changes occured in the Earth's climate in the past.See other relevent posts in the past from Realclimate.Climate often does not change slowly, but undergoes huge, quick, changes periodically, due to negative feedbacks accumulating, and tipping the climate to a quick change.Why should the danger from huge potential methane releases be vievwed with any less trepidation?

Chlorine is easy to smell at concentrations much less than fatal.

1µmol CH4 = 1.6e - 5g / l = 1.6e - 2 g / m ^ 3 1.5 e9 g / day / 2.4 e15 m ^ 3 = ~ 6.3e - 7 g / m ^ 3 / day = ~ 2.5e - 6 micromolar increase per day diluted over the volume of the Gulf, However, given the 80 fold variation in concentrations observed above under much milder conditions, and the observations of clathrate formation at the wellhead, there are undoubtedly plumes of near methane saturated water (with volumes orders of magnitude less than that of the Gulf) drifting in the currents, slowly dissipating by diffusion and biogeochemical oxidation.

Actually, by the time you approach 200ppmv for CO2, you have already reached the break point in the curve, beyond which additional CO2 has much less impact on the RF — and this is close to the glacial value — suggesting that CO2 changes do not drive the glacial cycles (CO2 changes are supposed to amplify T rise during deglaciation, but there is scant evidence for this and the assumption that it did also underlay the IPCC belief — and a great many references in academic papers give a T degrees C per ppmv CO2 without stating over which range of concentrations this is meant to apply.

However, (a) the anthropogenic emission is less than a third of the seasonal variation, and (b) the rapid changes to atmospheric CO2 concentration of the seasonal variation indicate that during each year the system very rapidly adjusts to seasonal changes that are much greater than the anthropogenic emission each year (in some places more than an order of magnitude greater; e.g. at Alert, Canada).

On the other hand, once water is present, its IR spectral lines overlap with those of CO2 and make CO2 less potent a greenhouse gas — for the same reason why the temperature dependence on CO2 concentration becomes logarithmic: the previous molecules have already done much of the effect, anyway.

In contrast, with the non-Indigenous population there was a much higher concentration in Major Cities (69 %) with less than 2 % living in Remote and Very Remote areas.