Sentences with phrase «think about greenhouse gases»

The points of this paper are not really specific to CO2, but rather a more general way to think about greenhouse gases (GHG).

When you think about greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide usually comes to mind.

Your next science challenge, is to start thinking about greenhouse gasses, and their absorption spectra.

Not exact matches

«If you know carbon dioxide is a «greenhouse gas» but think it kills the things that live in greenhouses,» Kahan said, «then it's safe to say you don't know much about climate science.»

In 1998, as the United States was considering signing the international Kyoto Protocol treaty to limit global greenhouse gas emissions, Southern was part of an initiative called the Global Science Communications Team that brought together industry, public relations and think tank leaders to devise a plan to confuse the public about the state of climate science.

The cooling effect from this aerosol forcing is thought to be about half that of greenhouse gases, but in the opposing (cooling) direction.

I think that if we are serious about the need to cut greenhouse gas emissions we'd show it by drastically cutting air and highway travel beginning with a freeze on all non-essential travel by air.

I'm not sure this bodes well for the global thinking, and interaction, that'd have to take place if the world were to get serious about curbing the growth of greenhouse gas emissions.

By the way, I'd just like to mention that I am far happier to be arguing about the comparative benefits of nuclear power, wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, conservation, efficiency, reforestation, organic agriculture, etc. for quickly reducing CO2 emissions and concentrations, than to be engaged in yet another argument with someone who doesn't believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or that human activities are not causing warming, or that the Earth is cooling, or thinks that AGW is a «liberal» conspiracy to destroy capitalism, etc..

So if you thought, for example, about a very revved up, intensive effort to work on the electrification of the vehicle fleet and the production of electric cars in the United States, it could be a very good thing for our auto business, for creating jobs, for manufacturing in Ohio and Michigan, for example — all things that could be quite appealing in many ways and could also have a big impact on greenhouse gases, even though it's not kind of presented as that — as the — that's not — it's not framed in that sense.

They only think about their own business, they do not care that US's greenhouse gas emission is affecting world poor areas.

I honestly think she's too young to be listening to me going on and on about such confusing stuff as oil, gas, coal, greenhouse effect, global warming, manmade climate change, population explosion (she knows about it), deforestation, desertification, rapid extinction of other species, pollution, problems, overconsumption, overindustrialization, problems, politics, economics, consumerism, and problems, religion, war, etc., etc., etc..

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.

What simply amazes me (TonyB seems to agree) is that U.K. and other jurisdictions have enacted laws to mandate greenhouse gas reductions with HUGE impact on the taxpayers» lives without any evidence that they have even thought about the effectiveness of their programs in actually reducing global warming.

«ExxonMobil invests significant amounts in letting think - tanks, seemingly respectable sources, sow doubts about the need for EU governments to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,» said Olivier Hoedeman, of the Corporate Europe Observatory.

But in thinking about those policies, we must always remember one thing: geoengineering is not now and never will be an alternative to dramatic reductions in our greenhouse gas emissions.

In the scorching summer of 1988, when global warming first hit headlines in a significant way, presidential candidate George H.W. Bush used a Michigan speech to pledge meaningful action curbing heat - trapping greenhouse gases, saying, «Those who think we are powerless to do anything about the greenhouse effect forget about the White House effect.»

If you're actually thinking about what I've just said, you'll realise that the real world's greenhouse gases are predominantly nitrogen and oxygen, they are the bulk of our atmosphere and act like a blanket delaying the escape of heat from the surface..

Even a decade ago, we didn't know much about the climate flips; we simply thought that climate creep was starting to occur and that we needed to prevent greenhouse gases from slowly ramping up the heat.

«It's not just greenhouse gasses that we need to be thinking about.»

If you read the first Hub in this series, you may recall that climate sensitivity is thought to be about 3 degrees Celsius per «doubling» of greenhouse gases.

Like the ideological think tanks and Astroturf groups discussed later in this report, these front groups are not interested in educating the public about the large body of science that supports concern that greenhouse gases are threatening people around the world and the ecological systems on which they depend.

Dr. Theodore A. Scambos, a glaciologist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado, said the long life of Larsen B «makes you think there's something particularly unusual about this warming» — perhaps evidence that the warming has been brought on by artificial emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that trap heat in the atmosphere.

Online resources and op - ed writers talking about WV as the «most important greenhouse gas» or «CO2 is only 0.033 % of the atmosphere» are misleading simplifications, and I don't think the IPCC explanation is misleading at all.

I certainly believe in the physics of greenhouse gases, etc., but think there has been way too much hype and exaggeration about global warming / climate change.

I thought explaining how they have taken out the real heat from the Sun because they had to use its measurements for their «backradiation from greenhouse gases» would be the easiest to explain..., the arguments about the second law are interminable because few understand that physics well enough to counter the AGW tweaking of it by several sleights of hand.

You don't need to think long to find a reason for the tobacco industry and big oil wanting to spread doubt about the science behind the link between tobacco and cancer, and behind greenhouse gases and global warming, respectively.

It can be most useful to think about climate change through a risk management lens — the more greenhouse gases that we emit, the greater the risks for dangerous impacts to occur.

I think your somewhat confused about the way CO2 and water acts as greenhouse gases.

I think it's worth noting that even running on pure coal - electricty, a plug - in hybrid electric today would have much lower emissions of greenhouse gasses than the average new car today running on gasoline, and about the same emissions as a regular hybrid.

I'm thinking that a newswriter could start with, «While the basics of global warming are well established, and our greenhouse gas emissions are causing the warming, with many dire consequences, there is still some scientific uncertainty about (or debate on).....»

And I think that Mike, if in fact he were truly concerned about climate change and truly familiar with California, would recognize that 50 % of our greenhouse gas emissions in California are attributable to the development in refining and use of petroleum, and focus attention there.

Just three days before the United States and China, the world's two biggest carbon polluters, signed what could be a ground - breaking agreement to accelerate the reduction of greenhouse gas pollution, Oliver was telling the La Presse editorial board (in French) that, «I think that people aren't as worried as they were before about global warming of two degrees.

BH: Some of them are talking about climate sensitivity at 1.2 C, at 1.5 C. I think this is completely implausible because the basic energetics of the climate system responding to the additional greenhouse gas emissions almost from simple physics, has to be at least 1.2 C and possibly more before you begin to take into account any of the feedbacks in the system from water vapour in clouds and so on.

... Drawdown is the point in time when greenhouse gas concentrations peak in the atmosphere and begin to go down on a year - to - year basis... I hadn't thought about solutions much until I saw the wedges, in 2001.

«The results show that we need to think differently about how the ocean responds to taking up heat and passive tracers or greenhouse gases.

Just think, if all pool pumps sold in the United States were ENERGY STAR certified, the energy cost savings would grow to about $ 155 million each year and 2.5 billion pounds of annual greenhouse gas emissions would be prevented, equivalent to the emissions from more than 260,000 vehicles.

If you think about it and if they «are» right about both the causes and the effects (melting ice caps, raising sea levels — e.g. increased ocean surface worldwide, increased surface temperatures on land and at sea and erratic excesses in weather) then the results may well be an eventual drastic swing the other day as we see increases in reflection, evaporation and conversion of «greenhouse» gases back into inert forms!

Simply thinking about industrial emissions of greenhouse gases is not all that useful.

The simple way to think about this is that greenhouse gases are trapping heat in the lower atmosphere.

«Those who want to reduce greenhouse - gas emissions, reduce deforestation or increase the ability of people to spend quality time with their friends, families and communities will need to spend as much time thinking about the cultural drivers of the problems they seek to solve as developing policy solutions to them.»

I had other thoughts about a null hypothesis in science, like for instance, if you want to understand the effect of «greenhouse - gasses» in the atmosphere, the null hypothesis would be, the effect of an atmosphere on a planet without greenhouse gasses.

From a theoretical perspective, if one thinks about carbon taxes or permit prices as «internalizing the externality» of the damage from greenhouse gases, compensating those harmed by the externality is a logical use of any such funds, at whatever level they are applied.

Although most people think of climate change as a fossil fuel problem, agriculture, forestry, land - use change, and other land uses, (the «land sector»), account for about 24 % of global greenhouse gas emission.