Sentences with phrase «think human carbon»

He wrote a well - reviewed book called «The Climate Fix: What Scientists and Politicians Won't Tell You About Global Warming,» in which he presents measured skepticism of climate - change orthodoxy — for example, he believes the role of carbon emissions from human industry is greatly exaggerated by politicized science, but he doesn't think human carbon emissions are irrelevant, and is not implacably hostile to the goal of reducing them.

Not exact matches

Meanwhile, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt told CNBC that he doesn't think human - produced carbon dioxide is driving climate change.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing that we all ought to be carbon copies of one another but fundamentally I think we want to say that there is ONE PARTICULAR way to be fully human and fully alive and that ONE PARTICULAR way is unique to Jesus, not unique to us.

Given the knowledge that they are crapping in their own habitat with their carbon emissions from fossil fuel burning on Earth, I'd like to think humans have gained an evolutionary advantage which canines lack.

But researchers have thought there might be one reason to cheer this surfeit of nitrogen: The nutrient should fertilize tree growth, spurring forests to soak up human - made carbon dioxide (CO2) that would otherwise fuel global warming.

But if humans, through carbon dioxide emissions, are affecting climate less than we think, would that mean we may have more time to reduce the harmful effects?

When carbon is emitted by human activities into the atmosphere it is generally thought that about half remains in the atmosphere and the remainder is stored in the oceans and on land.

As humans release ever - larger amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, besides warming the planet, the gas is also turning the world's oceans more acidic — at rates thought to far exceed those seen during past major extinctions of life.

A new study, however, shows that forests devastated by drought may lose their ability to store carbon over a much longer period than previously thought, reducing their role as a buffer between humans» carbon emissions and a changing climate.

With human carbon dioxide production accounting for less than 3 % of the earth's total natural carbon dioxide production it is ludicrous to think any small reduction we might make would be perceptible — Remember going back to the old stone age before mankind had fire (when the climate was warmer than it is now) would result in a less than 3 % reduction in carbon dioxide production.

For decades, we humans apparently (somehow) thought that, because carbon dioxide emissions are invisible to the naked eye, they either don't matter or aren't really there.

As to the carbon sink, I do think we can make a difference (don't know how much) with biomass pyrolysis, but that all depends on how smart the human race chooses to be.

If our ultimate goal is to reduce carbon emissions and, hence, to save humanity, we must realize the psychological effect that the disturbing truth may have and teach about climate change and energy in a carefully thought - out manner based on the available research about human psychology.

It is amusing to me that some people think human creativity and adaptability will solve any and all problems associated with the Anthropocene, but that a simple carbon tax will bring civilization crashing down.

To me all the witnesses and senators are obviously persons of consequence but I don't think your excerpt shows that anyone should think he takes issue with this statement — «No one questions that surface temperatures have increased overall since 1880, or that humans are adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, or that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have a warming effect on the planet.»

The thinking behind it is straightforward: Human activity, especially the burning of fossil fuels, generates carbon dioxide, methane and other gases that accumulate in the atmosphere; there they trap the sun's heat the way a greenhouse does; to reduce the heat, reduce the gases.

But I think there is a religious component to carbon hysteria that harks from a deep human need for shared belief and tradition — a need that is not fulfilled in modern secular society.

== > ``... but do you really think that human additions to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by the middle of the 21st century would be reasonably interpreted as from now?»

I guess I have to consider any argument made by someone who calls me homie: — RRB -, but do you really think that human additions to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by the middle of the 21st century would be reasonably interpreted as from now?

However, I think the evidence favours a significant climate impact due to human carbon emissions and therefore some response is required.

If the planet is cooling, even temporarily, then human carbon emissions can't be a key factor, and we don't want people thinking that, do we?

The President - elect told The New York Times in an interview after the election, «I think there is some connectivity,» when asked about the role that carbon dioxide produced by humans plays in climate change.

I don't think proper context is provided for example when human carbon dioxide emissions are compared with natural exchanges (such as absorption by plants and respiration by animals).

Abbott's argument was the same one he used last week, when he suggested that because bushfires happened before humans raised carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere by 40 %, we shouldn't think this could have anything to do with bushfires happening now.

Do you really think that's the same as saying «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?»

It's not a avery large offset to human emissions and I think there bigger concern is that all of this very large reservoir of lake moss peat, this lake carbon, is stored in permafrost since the sediments refreeze when they drain.»

In thinking about the human imprint on future climate, the cumulative carbon is the only number you really need to pay attention to.

Since many think that human - produced carbon dioxide is warming the planet and contributing to sea level rise, they wanted to make it clear that if the world doesn't do something to curb emissions, their island nation could soon be underwater.

I don't think it could double the human impact, releasing as much carbon as we do, or else the natural world would be «tippier» than it is observed to be, with the occasional meltdown like the PETM but not meltdowns all the time, like models do if you set them up with a carbon cycle feedback that is too strong or acts too quickly.

Because the human influence on climate can be represented by a single statistic, cumulative carbon, it can provide an alternative metric - just like GWP or CO2 - equivalent, in thinking about the evolution of global temperatures.

The logic is clear: If the Earth has already warmed more than we thought due to human activities, then there's even less remaining carbon dioxide that we can emit and still avoid 2 degrees of warming.