Sentences with phrase «so human carbon dioxide»

Not exact matches

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

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.»

«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.»

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 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 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.

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.

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.

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

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

«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.

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.

That's why we're seeing so many records lately; El Niño might produce a spike, but that spike is sitting on top of an upward trend, the physical manifestation of human induced global warming, driven mostly by our dumping 40 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the air every year.

The entirety of the so - called «ecological overshoot» is attributable to the sixth metric, human emissions of carbon dioxide.

E.g., research assumes greenhouse gas emissions cause warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause»... carbon sequestration in soil is important for mitigating global climate change» (4a) No position Does not address or mention the cause of global warming (4b) Uncertain Expresses position that human's role on recent global warming is uncertain / undefined «While the extent of human - induced global warming is inconclusive...» (5) Implicit rejection Implies humans have had a minimal impact on global warming without saying so explicitly E.g., proposing a natural mechanism is the main cause of global warming»... anywhere from a major portion to all of the warming of the 20th century could plausibly result from natural causes according to these results» (6) Explicit rejection without quantification Explicitly minimizes or rejects that humans are causing global warming»... the global temperature record provides little support for the catastrophic view of the greenhouse effect» (7) Explicit rejection with quantification Explicitly states that humans are causing less than half of global warming «The human contribution to the CO2 content in the atmosphere and the increase in temperature is negligible in comparison with other sources of carbon dioxide emission»»

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) last December formally issued a so - called «Endangerment Finding» declaring carbon dioxide, the very substance human beings exhale, is a danger to our health and the future of life on the planet as we know it.

To have been so certain, with our limited knowledge of our biosphere, that we could have caused changes, on the huge scale as we have, particularly in regards to carbon dioxide emissions, as I have discussed above, and not seriously risk enormous and extremely damaging outcomes up to, and including, the outright extinction of the human species, is a degree of stupidity which still defies my capacity to comprehend.

The deeply controversial and unconstitutional agreement comes about a month after what might be among the most revealing developments so far in the supposed war on man - emitted carbon dioxide — an essential natural gas exhaled by humans that makes up a fraction of one percent of the greenhouse gases naturally in the atmosphere.

So perhaps you could tell us what Humans are doing to cause Global Warming, other than emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere?

The only way to do that is to reduce the output of so - called greenhouse gasses, caused primarily by carbon dioxide emissions from industry, automobiles and other human activities, Horton said.