Sentences with phrase «raising atmospheric levels»

We have done that in spades by burning fossil fuels, raising atmospheric levels from a pre-industrial 280 parts per million to the current 387 ppm.

Not exact matches

«Low level of oxygen in Earth's middle ages delayed evolution for two billion years: A low level of atmospheric oxygen in Earth's middle ages held back evolution for 2 billion years, raising fresh questions about the origins of life on this planet.»

A low level of atmospheric oxygen in Earth's middle ages held back evolution for 2 billion years, raising fresh questions about the origins of life on this planet.

The mid-Pliocene was the last time atmospheric CO2 levels were similar to today's, trapping heat and raising global temperatures to above the levels Earth is experiencing now.

Over the past 250 years, human activities such as fossil fuel burning have raised the atmospheric CO2 concentration by more than 40 % over its preindustrial level of 280 ppm (parts per million).

If current trends continue, we will raise atmospheric CO2 concentrations to double pre-industrial levels during this century.

Yet over the period 2020 - 2100 RCP2.6 includes 290Gt (C) of net CO2 emissions, a quantity which would raise atmospheric CO2 levels by 62ppm if it had been released in recent decades, 53ppm above that expected for 2100.

[Response: That is a positive feedback that acted during ice age cycles: when it got warmer at the end of an ice age, this led to release of stored CO2 from the deep ocean, thus raising atmospheric CO2 levels.

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.

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.

Moreover, concerns previously raised by the Arctic Methane Emergency Group (AMEG) over potential methane plumes in shallow Arctic waters have re-emerged, with occasional readings of massively elevated atmospheric methane levels — perhaps small harbingers of what some have called «dragons» breath».

And as to his claim that there may be «places around the world where global warming will lead to less crop success and yield, even when taking into account the carbon dioxide fertilization effect,» he appears to be equally ignorant that rising levels of atmospheric CO2 tend to raise the temperature of optimum plant photosynthesis beyond the predicted temperature values associated with global warming, effectively nullifying this worn out claim (Idso & Idso, 2011).

I don't care what physicists say about CO2, historical & modern data says there is no correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels & temperature, except in that warming raises CO2 levels.

From the above illustration it can be seen that the United States and the EU are more responsible for raising atmospheric concentrations to current dangerous levels than than the rest of the world combined.

The second is the urgency of the need for hard - to - imagine action to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas (ghg) emissions at all scales, that is globally, nationally, and locally, but particularly in high - emitting nations such as the United States in light of the limited amount of ghgs that can be emitted by the entire world before raising atmospheric ghg concentrations to very dangerous levels and in light of the need to fairly allocate ghg emissions reductions obligations around the world.

Although there is considerable scientific evidence that limiting warming to 1.5 degrees C is necessary to prevent very dangerous warming, a fact implicit in the recent Paris Agreement in which nations agreed to work to keep warming as close as possible from exceeding 1.5 degrees C additional warming, if the international community seeks to limit warming to 2 degrees C it must assure that global emissions do not exceed the number of tons of CO2 emissions that will raise atmospheric concentrations to levels that will cause warming of 2 degrees C.

But a point you raised gnawed at me, and I tentatively reached a result that is an argument for your point of view: if you start with our atmospheric pressure at ground level, the difference in kinetic energy Velasco et al. specify for an altitude difference of, say, 10 km would not be measurable with a time uncertainty less than a second even in principle unless the gas - column width is less than something on the order of 100 nitrogen - molecule diameters across.

By emitting billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, we've raised atmospheric carbon dioxide to levels not seen in millions of years.

High storm surges (sea levels raised by storm winds and atmospheric pressure) also tend to move coastal sand offshore.

The theory assumption of the models is that anthropogenic CO2 influences atmospheric CO2 levels which in turn raises global temperatures.

The biggest increase in background radiation levels world wide was during the peak of atmospheric weapons testing during the 1960s raising the level by about 5 %.

Scientists have calculated that, were the world ever to burn all its fossil fuels, thus increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and stoking up planetary temperatures, that would be enough to melt the entire Antarctic continent and raise sea levels by 60 metres.

I am by no means writing that humans have not raised atmospheric CO2 levels.

We have all gotten so used to the «standard» interpretation (that humans are the primary cause for increased atmospheric CO2 levels) that no one has questioned it anymore (despite the gnawing questions raised by the 450,000 - year Vostok record).

After all, even the EPA's own lawyers, non-scientist professional bureaucratic infighters that they are, seem to recognize that if Mother Nature could, in pre-industrial times, raise the earth's global mean temperature to levels approaching today's levels — but without the benefit of having that additional 100 ppm of atmospheric CO2 with which to force the increase — then key parts of current AGW theory can be called into question, even the climate prediction models.

Commercial greenhouse operators raise CO2 levels to 1200 ppm, three times atmospheric levels.

Consider, for example, that Lowe, et al. [in Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change, H.J. Schellnhuber et al. (eds), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006, p. 32 - 33], based on a «pessimistic, but plausible, scenario in which atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations were stabilised at four times pre-industrial levels,» estimated that a collapse of the Greenland Ice Sheet would over the next 1,000 years raise sea level by 2.3 meters (with a peak rate of 0.5 mm / yr).

There is the «business as usual» case that assumes 4 degrees of global warming is inevitable, so we should use the cheapest and most plentiful energy sources available regardless of the fact that burning these fuels will raise atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations 40 percent higher than current levels.

In fact, atmospheric CO2 levels at 400 ppm are approximately one - third the optimum required for plant growth as commercial greenhouses demonstrate by raising levels to 1200 ppm for increased yields.