Sentences with phrase «real greenhouse gas»

The real greenhouse gas blanket is the real gas atmosphere of nitrogen and oxygen.

Most important is ensuring that local communities can benefit by project developers using standards like ACR and that real greenhouse gas reductions are occurring on the ground,» stated Anthony Brunello, executive director, Green Technology Leadership Group.

«It will be a win - win if we can demonstrate through our pilot projects that the carbon market can provide alternate revenue streams to help local farmers and landowners adopt practices that will improve water quality in addition to achieving real greenhouse gas emission reduction benefits.»

However, the real greenhouse gas model has no problem.

Without the real gases, mainly nitrogen and oxygen which make up c98 % of our real Earth's atmosphere, the temps would be around minus 18 °C, with the real greenhouse gases mainly nitrogen and oxygen, but, without water, the temps would be 67 °C.

On the moon, because is no O&N, the coldness at night touches to the ground — on the earth, the REAL greenhouse gases O&N as perfect insulators are keeping that coldness 45 km high up.

Our full atmosphere of real greenhouse gases, which are not ideal gases but have volume, weight, attraction and subject to gravity, act as a blanket weighing down a ton per square foot around the Earth keeping the heat from the Sun's warming of the Earth from escaping too quickly before the Sun again heats the surface.

Not exact matches

Today, I am pleased to announce another important building block in our Climate Change plan — designed to help us achieve our targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to generate real emission reduction opportunities across the economy.

«At a time when aviation generates just 1.6 per cent of greenhouse gasses, isn't it time that Minister Pearson and other equally foolish politicians actually tackled the real causes of climate change which is road transport and power generation.»

«Saying we need to actually phase down greenhouse gas emissions, I think that's a real sea change.»

The question is not just a scientific curiosity, but has real world applications because one mechanism contributes more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere than the other.

They used real - world data to simulate the season that had just passed, then stripped the data of the influence of greenhouse gas emissions and ran the simulation again.

«One real prob with greenhouse gas data is that in many countries, the inventories are years and years out of date,» he said.

In the new set - up, a real - world seasonal forecast driven by data on current sea - surface temperatures will be run alongside a simulated «no global warming» seasonal forecast, in which greenhouse gas emissions have been stripped out.

In 1960 they reported that the greenhouse threat was real and would worsen seriously unless strong action was taken to halt the rise in emission of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels.

I mean, one of the real reasons that people feel compelled — the scientists involved feel compelled — to do the research in this area is because, you know, something like 18 percent of greenhouse gases that are produced come from the livestock industry.

Our descendants will pay a higher price for greenhouse gas build - up as real costs are updated over time

«They must not put pressure on food security and we must make sure the greenhouse gas reductions are real and verified.»

By 1988, the EPRI produced a report that concluded «there is a growing consensus in the community that the greenhouse gas effect is real,» the EPI said.

In addition to providing real - time air quality data above and around the leak site to state regulators, the measurements will allow researchers the opportunity to check the accuracy of greenhouse gas measurements made using remote sensing systems such as satellites.

Objectors often claim unfair benefits are given to the worst polluters, and that trading schemes obfuscate from the real problem — the excess of greenhouse gas emissions that continue to perpetuate global warming.

Although these two carbon sources alone wouldn't have accounted for the dramatic warming event that followed, once a bunch of greenhouse gas is released into the atmosphere, as we modern earthlings have been observing in real time lately, it destabilizes and releases other greenhouse gases like methane locked up in permafrost or under the seafloor.

«Climate change is real and happening now, and the United States urgently needs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,» said Holt, who was the U.S. representative for New Jersey's 12th congressional district from 1999 to 2015.

If one is looking for real differences among mainstream scientists, they can be found on two fronts: the precise implications of those higher temperatures, and which technologies and policies offer the best solution to reducing, on a global scale, the emission of greenhouse gases.

Scientists have generally said there is about a 40 year time lag between a large injection of greenhouse gases and the start of real climate impacts.

The real question is which factor is doing the heavy lifting — and a new report in Nature released Wednesday says that on the Antarctic Peninsula, at least, human - generated greenhouse gases have almost certainly been by far the most important driver of warming over the past half - century.

• Finally, we believe that the real estate industry is in a unique position to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through energy efficiency improvements that are low cost and that create value within the underlying asset.

Global warming is usually attributed to the increase in «greenhouse gases» and our «carbon footprint», but that is an incomplete understanding of the real cause of global warming.

No one questions that CO2 is a greenhouse gas; the real question concerns the DEGREE to which CO2 levels affect the climate system.

Therefore the (poorly named) greenhouse gas effect is real.

This points out the real weakness in the EPA's numbers — not that they're wrong, but that the CAFE standards aren't as effective in cutting greenhouse gases.

But I really like how he describes the sometimes uncomfortable need to fracture old alliances and cross longstanding battle lines if you're serious about finding ways to cut greenhouse gas emissions that can work in the real world.

Between the poles of real - time catastrophe and nonevent lies the prevailing scientific view: Without big changes in emissions rates, global warming from the buildup of greenhouse gases is likely to lead to substantial, and largely irreversible, transformations of climate, ecosystems and coastlines later this century.

Limiting emissions of greenhouse gases is a long - term challenge that needs to be addressed in ways that achieve results; building and living resiliently in tornado zones is a real - time imperative, with or without a push from climate change.

See this Real Climate post: Why greenhouse gases heat the ocean.

If one is looking for real differences among mainstream scientists, they can be found on two fronts: the precise implications of those higher temperatures, and which technologies and policies offer the best solution to reducing, on a global scale, the emission of greenhouse gases.

That exists, it's real, it's clear it has has been swamped by the rapid change in forcing from increasing greenhouse gases.

Companies that are opposed to mandatory measures will be unhappy with a real scientist going on television and explaining what is happening and what we must do to combat climate change (i.e. setting significant and mandatory greenhouse gas reduction targets), which, they think, will reduce their profit margins.

However if that is so, please note that in the real world the radiation emitted by each layer originates only from the the greenhouse gases, and is not cavity radiation.

But this unprecedented international treaty will lead to real action only if the leaders of those countries can garner popular support for the measures needed to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

There's no way out of it: if the greenhouse gas theory were correct and the climate models were really modelling the «real climate» then the high latitudes would be warming the fastest.

What I am saying is that real, useful, competent action on reducing greenhouse gas emmissions will require an intellectual and emotional movement of great proportions, and my observation is that such movements do not arrise without leaders and heroes.

I used to think massive investment in basic science might be our only way out, but when I read about the real cost for producing electric cars (ex., greenhouse gases used to make batteries), subsidized solar companies going under because they can not compete with China (which doesn't care about labor needs or pollution), etc., then I wonder about that too.

One should not mix up a scenario with a forecast — I can not easily compare a scenario for the effects of greenhouse gases alone with observed data, because I can not easily isolate the effect of the greenhouse gases in these data, given that other forcings are also at play in the real world.

Keep in mind none of this prevents me from trying repeatedly to explain climate science, reveal efforts to distort climate findings, and lay out, in an unvarnished way, the real - world options for cutting greenhouse - gas emissions and the lack of effort under way to tackle the energy challenge underlying the climate problem.

One issue, of course, is that while the focus is on developing or refining energy technologies with limited or no emissions of greenhouse gases, the discussion is taking place in a world where real - time pressures are driving the expansion of conventional fossil fuel menus to keep up with ballooning global energy demand.

Is such a «greenhouse gas only» scenario one that has been «realised» in the real world, and thus can be compared to data?

In the same way, a «greenhouse gas only» scenario can not be verified by observed data, because the real climate system has evolved under both greenhouse gas and aerosol forcing.

And / or what is your real - world proposal for limiting the buildup of greenhouse gases pushing on the Earth's thermostat?

However, the real place for the scientific debate on AGW is in the scientific literature — where, so far as the basics point are concerned — that greenhouse gases are responsible for most 20th century warming, and curbing emissions is urgent — it's long been settled.