Sentences with phrase «significant impact on global warming»

Many people argue that 50 years is simply too long to have any significant impact on global warming.

Not exact matches

«The most significant environmental impacts for all three nappy systems were on resource depletion, acidification and global warming,» the authors concluded.

On the contrary, roughly 80 percent of HOT is devoted to on - the - ground reporting that focuses on solutions — not just the relatively well known options for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and otherwise limiting global warming, but especially the related but much less recognized imperative of preparing our societies for the many significant climate impacts (e.g., stronger storms, deeper droughts, harsher heat waves, etc.,) that, alas, are now unavoidable over the years aheaOn the contrary, roughly 80 percent of HOT is devoted to on - the - ground reporting that focuses on solutions — not just the relatively well known options for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and otherwise limiting global warming, but especially the related but much less recognized imperative of preparing our societies for the many significant climate impacts (e.g., stronger storms, deeper droughts, harsher heat waves, etc.,) that, alas, are now unavoidable over the years aheaon - the - ground reporting that focuses on solutions — not just the relatively well known options for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and otherwise limiting global warming, but especially the related but much less recognized imperative of preparing our societies for the many significant climate impacts (e.g., stronger storms, deeper droughts, harsher heat waves, etc.,) that, alas, are now unavoidable over the years aheaon solutions — not just the relatively well known options for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and otherwise limiting global warming, but especially the related but much less recognized imperative of preparing our societies for the many significant climate impacts (e.g., stronger storms, deeper droughts, harsher heat waves, etc.,) that, alas, are now unavoidable over the years ahead.

I often hear nuclear advocates proclaiming that «nuclear is THE solution to global warming» and that «no one can be serious about dealing with global warming if they don't support expanded use of nuclear power» but I have never heard any nuclear advocate lay out a plan showing how many nuclear power plants would have to be built in what period of time to have a significant impact on GHG emissions.

Additionally, excessive use of nitrogenous fertilizer has a significant negative impact on global warming, due to agriculture's contribution of non-carbon dioxide emissions.

Point being, the more one examines the data and reads the studies, the more difficult it is to deny the significant human impact on global warming.

The impact of methane release on global warming, however, would not be significant within the considered time span.

The fact that so many studies on climate change don't bother to endorse the consensus position is significant because scientists have largely moved from what's causing global warming onto discussing details of the problem (eg - how fast, how soon, impacts, etc).

In the North Sea, global warming is affecting plankton and the marine food chain, compounding the pressures of overfishing.3 Future warming is also expected to exert a significant impact on the marine ecosystem, creating further uncertainty for the fishing industry.7, 8,15

More Scientific Evidence For CO2's Dubious Climate Impact Emerges Image Source: Robertson and Chilingar, 2017 According to the most basic precepts of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), variations in CO2 concentrations exert significant control on sea surface temperatures, glaciers, sea levels, and generalized climate dynamics (i.e., precipitation patterns).

Perhaps Mr. Steele's strongest point is that the obsession with Global Warming will have an unfair impact on funding for local environmental projects as these efforts have had a significant and direct impact on the survival of plant and animal species.

In this context, for the Administration to have released a U.S. Climate Action Report with a chapter on climate change impacts that identified a range of likely adverse consequences, based on scientific reports including the National Assessment, could rightly be seen as an anomaly and appeared to be seen as a significant political error by Administration allies dedicated to denying the reality of human - induced global warming as a significant problem.

As a result, significant, non-CO2 impacts on global warming are either ignored or trivialized by the IPCC.

Global warming, which may have produced temperatures 10 to 30 degrees Celsius higher than today, would have had a significant impact both on oceans, where about 95 % of lifeforms became extinct, and on land, where almost 75 % of species died out.

May be we need to admit that our behaviour and actions on the earth have significant impacts on the functioning natural and human urban environments and is the key factor, not global warming per se.

Pushing for more advanced technologies or establishing regulations could make ICAO's goals more attainable, and have a more significant impact on reducing air travel's effect on global warming.

As its impact on global warming is a significant one, natural causes are given a contribution rate of 50 %.

«Climate science» as it is used by warmists implies adherence to a set of beliefs: (1) Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations will warm the Earth's surface and atmosphere; (2) Human production of CO2 is producing significant increases in CO2 concentration; (3) The rate of rise of temperature in the 20th and 21st centuries is unprecedented compared to the rates of change of temperature in the previous two millennia and this can only be due to rising greenhouse gas concentrations; (4) The climate of the 19th century was ideal and may be taken as a standard to compare against any current climate; (5) global climate models, while still not perfect, are good enough to indicate that continued use of fossil fuels at projected rates in the 21st century will cause the CO2 concentration to rise to a high level by 2100 (possibly 700 to 900 ppm); (6) The global average temperature under this condition will rise more than 3 °C from the late 19th century ideal; (7) The negative impact on humanity of such a rise will be enormous; (8) The only alternative to such a disaster is to immediately and sharply reduce CO2 emissions (reducing emissions in 2050 by 80 % compared to today's rate) and continue further reductions after 2050; (9) Even with such draconian CO2 reductions, the CO2 concentration is likely to reach at least 450 to 500 ppm by 2100 resulting in significant damage to humanity; (10) Such reductions in CO2 emissions are technically feasible and economically affordable while providing adequate energy to a growing world population that is increasingly industrializing.

One would think, based on all the global warming anti-CO2 propaganda, that a huge cut in emissions would have a significant and worthwhile impact - it ain't so, though.

From direct observation we already know that the extreme predictions of CO2's impact on global temperature are highly unlikely given that about one - third of all our CO2 emissions have been discharged during the past 18 years and there has been no statistically significant warming.

Climate change and global warming are and will continue to be a «significant obstacle» to efforts to eradicate poverty, the report says, citing climate - related impacts on people including drought, flooding, failed crops and rising food prices.

However, on a more local level, global warming may have a significant impact, as original and newly introduced species spread faster from one place to another and take over new patches of habitat.

Warm years result in increases of zooplankton predators such as chaetognaths, another indication that global change may be having a significant impact on community organization [329].

Was the «expert» prediction correct that modern climate change (i.e., global warming) would have a significant negative impact on bird specie populations?

Much to the dismay of many, the actual «global warming» is having a significant impact on science in a way they did not want.