If we eliminated emissions of methane and black carbon, but did
nothing about carbon dioxide we would have delayed but not significantly reduced long - term threats posed by climate change.
Not exact matches
«I believe it would be irresponsible to ignore emerging information
about the contribution of
carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to climate change and the potential harm to our environment and health if we do
nothing.»
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.
In contrast, if we eliminated
carbon dioxide emissions but did
nothing about methane and black
carbon emissions, threats posed by long - term climate change would be markedly reduced.
If it was warmer then that it is now, but that warmth had
nothing to do with any
carbon dioxide, how does that tell us anything
about today's sensitivity?
«We've emitted 500 billion tonnes of
carbon dioxide and we only recently have any certainty this is affecting our climate, so limited field tests would tell you next to
nothing about the climate effects of solar geoengineering.»
Nothing, right... except when you consider that the radiative forcing due to doubling of the atmospheric concentration of
carbon dioxide is only
about 3.7 W / m ², and that's expected to change the average surface temperature by
about 3 °C, eventually ³.
Artificially increasing the Earth's reflectivity, for example, does
nothing about the ongoing acidification of the oceans resulting from
carbon dioxide being added to the atmosphere.
He said
nothing specific
about ways of fighting emissions of
carbon dioxide from polluting internal combustion engines.