Sentences with phrase «so human carbon»

Not exact matches

While neither is overly occupied with the policy concerns of the larger environmental movement ¯ global climate, carbon capture, alternative energy, the future of nuclear power, and so on ¯ they help illuminate a common narrative that places nature above human need.

So how do those who deny evolution explain the human remains found in archaeological digs, having been radio - carbon dated, in some cases over two million years?

So CO2 is carbon dioxide and it's what we as humans breathe out every day.

Over the last decade lightweight carbon fiber and improvements in the design of the prosthetic racing foot have so improved performance that some people believe a human being without legs could have an advantage over one with them.

Politics of deferred gratification Under one of the additional scenarios, known as RCP 4.5, humans take longer to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but eventually do so, and under the other, known as RCP 8.5, carbon dioxide concentrations continue to rise through 2100.

But the Southern Ocean plays a more benign role in the global carbon budget: Its waters now take up about 50 % of the atmospheric carbon dioxide emitted by human activities, thanks in large part to the so - called «biological pump.»

At present rates of pollution then, human society would blow through its carbon budget in the next decade or so.

Humans do emit only a fraction of the 750 gigatons of CO2 that move through the atmosphere each year, but small changes in the total amount can overwhelm so - called carbon «sinks» such as the ocean, resulting in important, and cumulative, changes in the atmosphere.

«Human influence is so dominant now,» Baker asserts, «that whatever is going to go on in the tropics has much less to do with sea surface temperatures and the earth's orbital parameters and much more to do with deforestation, increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide and global warming.»

Wang closed the hood and Xu turned on a switch to deliver 3 % carbon monoxide (CO)-- a concentration so high that it would kill most humans almost immediately — for 4.5 minutes.

So should there also be a calculation of the effect of human biological energy generation on the natural carbon cycle?

The data would help researchers understand how microbes capture and store carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, how they break down organic matter so that plants can access its nutrients, and how they neutralize soil toxins known to threaten human health.

How do communities in the nutrient - poor, so - called oligotrophic open ocean react, if the seawater gradually acidifies due to the uptake of human - induced carbon dioxide (CO2)?

So why do humans Breathed in by plants worldwide and eaten by animals and people, the carbon - 14 gets incorporated into the DNA of cells each time the cell

Of course, «It Happens One Night» comes to mind, but The Sure Thing is so sparkling and original in its humor, so perceptive about human nature in its own right, that its key elements seem classic, not carbons.

«The planet is already teeming with one life form [humans], so you don't want a surplus of carbon footprints.»

So humans» carbon dioxide greenhouse effect is a quarter of 0.013, works out to about 0.00325.

A new NASA visualization shows how heat - trapping carbon dioxide from human sources mixes and spreads around the planet, and in so doing recalls for me a stirring 1859 description of the atmosphere written by Matthew Fontaine Maury, widely considered America's first oceanographer.

But given what I understand to be true, that greater warming has occured than in the distant past than is currently occurring, how can we be so sure we are examining all the right 20th century events, since these earlier warmings were clearly caused by events other than human driven carbon dioxide emissions?

So should there also be a calculation of the effect of human biological energy generation on the natural carbon cycle?

Which then leads to a very different characterization of the problem in which carbon emissions are really just a by - product of a cheap energy consumerist society, and the problem isn't to reduce emissions, it is to restructure our entire societies (and our conceptions of them) so that we no longer depend on growth in resource consumption as our definition of human progress.

So far, all of the criteria air pollutants under the agency's purview — substances from lead to sulfur dioxide — have a direct impact on human health and welfare, while risks from the carbon dioxide's buildup remain indirect, through the rising influence on climate.

Furthermore, the natural carbon cycle is so much greater than the human emissions and there are so many parallel processes working at the same time, that «finding» the «missing» CO2 is like looking for a needle in a haystack.

In fact, human beings have never lived in a world where carbon concentrations were so high until now.

So if you are worried about the plight of humans you need more carbon based energy.

Globally at the time, humans were cutting down forests for agriculture, driving carbon into the atmosphere (vegetation stores carbon, so trees and shrubs are what scientists call «carbon sinks»).

The audience for whom this piece is intended consists of people who know some chemistry and are uncertain about how to consider the often made claim by deniers that the oceans contain so much dissolved carbon that human production is inconsequential.

The significance of these restraints should be considered by the deniers when they assert that the amount of carbon dioxide dissolved in the oceans is so large that exchanges between the ocean and the atmosphere dwarf human production.

George is convinced that by adding iron sulphate to the oceans, he can stimulate plankton blooms and so suck enough carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere to offset human emissions from burning coal and oil.

I am also troubled that the discussion of climate change is so focused on carbon emissions instead of understanding the impact of the total human footprint.

He added that by aiming to restore the natural carbon cycle, we can take advantage of carbon for the benefit of humans, so that it can create positive environmental impacts, not harm in the end.

Accepting the assertion that humans are primarily responsible for climate change does not follow from knowing that carbon dioxide is a so - called greenhouse gas.

Do you yourself believe that a statement like» The entire framing of the IPCC was designed around identifying sufficient evidence so that the human - induced greenhouse warming could be declared unequivocal, and so providing the rationale for developing the political will to implement and enforce carbon stabilization targets» is self - evident and does not need any support to back it up?

In your original post you stated: «The entire framing of the IPCC was designed around identifying sufficient evidence so that the human - induced greenhouse warming could be declared unequivocal, and so providing the rationale for developing the political will to implement and enforce carbon stabilization targets.»

Humans have been putting additional carbon dioxide into the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels for only a century or so.

After centuries of scientific progress, Trenberth and his ilk have devolved climate science to the pre-Copernican days so that humans are once again at the center of the universe, and our carbon sins are responsible for every problem caused by an ever - changing natural world.

Too many sources are being ignored, and most are not being measured, so any «firm» statements that we absolutely know what the human component is, are based on an incomplete appreciation of the geochemistry of carbon.

So there's just no question that human activity is producing a massively large proportion of the carbon dioxide.

But Earth's biosphere and carbon cycle are vastly more creative than human imagination is able to anticipate, so don't take my word for any of this.

To understand the policy implications of a carbon budget it is helpful to see the atmosphere as like a bathtub to the extent that it has limited volume and has been filling up with ghg so that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have been rising in proportion to human activities which release ghgs.

After that, the planet warmed without significant human carbon emissions to blame, so what caused it?

«natural causes can only produce — volcanoes popping off and things like that and coming out of the ocean — only produce about one gigaton per year, so there's just no question that human activity is producing a massively large proportion of the carbon dioxide.»

And natural causes can only produce — volcanoes popping off and things like that and coming out of the ocean — only produce about one gigaton per year, so there's just no question that human activity is producing a massively large proportion of the carbon dioxide.

It is not widely understood that carbon dioxide persists in the atmosphere for centuries, so our future will depend on the total amount we humans put there over the next several decades.

Reading just that people might easily be led to believe that because human carbon dioxide emissions are so small, they won't be noticed against the background noise of natural exchanges, when that is patently untrue with CO2 concentrations stable within a few ppm around 280 ppm for the last few thousand years until mass fossil fuel burning started.

And so the heart of C&C is the idea that justice requires that rights to use the atmosphere as a carbon sink must be based upon the idea that all human beings have an equal right to use the global commons, the Earth's atmosphere.

«Carbon models» may «indicate that the ocean will be a net sink for CO2» (as you write), but, inasmuch as the natural carbon cycle is so much greater than the human emissions, we are talking about a small difference between large numbers.

The claim is often made that climate realists (a.k.a. skeptics) can not point to peer - reviewed papers to support their position that there is no evidence of «dangerous global warming:» caused by human emissions of so - called «greenhouse» gases, including carbon dioxide.

That lack of immediate concern may in part stem from a lack of understanding that today's pollution will heat the planet for centuries to come, as explained in this Denial101x lecture: So far humans have caused about 1 °C warming of global surface temperatures, but if we were to freeze the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide at today's levels, the planet would continue warming.

I'm talking about statements like... «The entire framing of the IPCC was designed around identifying sufficient evidence so that the human - induced greenhouse warming could be declared unequivocal, and so providing the rationale for political will to implement and enforce carbon stabilization targets.»