Sentences with phrase «warming emission overall»

Not exact matches

The warming effect of emissions complicates this cycle, so modelling the overall effect is fraught with uncertainty.

Researchers have found evidence that near - ground biogenic emissions of organics suppress cloud formation in cool - temperate forests in autumn, providing clues to how global warming will affect cloud formation and the overall climate.

«The overall significance is that although we already know that reducing methane emissions can bring great societal benefits via decreased near - term warming and improved air quality, and that many of the sources can be controlled at low or even negative cost, we still need better data on emissions from particular sources,» Duke University climate sciences professor Drew Shindell said.

Overall, the questions seem to focus on minutia rather than the big picture of how CO2 emissions warm the planet and the evidence supporting that.

Terrell Johnson, reporting on a recent NASA publication concluding that deep ocean temperatures have not increased since 2005 (http://www.weather.com/science/environment/news/deep-ocean-hasnt-warmed-nasa-20141007): «While the report's authors say the findings do not question the overall science of climate change, it is the latest in a series of findings that show global warming to have slowed considerably during the 21st century, despite continued rapid growth in human - produced greenhouse gas emissions during the same time.»

While the direct emissions saved from Arctic shipping may be significant in the context of shipping emissions overall, the net emissions scenario of an open Arctic are unlikely to offset the warming Arctic, not by a long shot.

We conclude that this scenario offers three attractive characteristics: environmental security, because the global carbon budget is set at a level which keeps global warming below 2 degrees; economic efficiency, because carbon trading allows the reductions to be made for least overall cost; and global social justice, because emission rights are allocated equally to all people.

But it is true that they don't seem to be addressing the question of overall uncertainty as to whether, or to what degree, increased CO2 emissions will translate into a warmer climate long - term.

Although the countries of Africa have some of the lowest overall and per capita global warming emissions on the planet, they are also likely to suffer from some of the worst consequences of climate change.

In 2006, the European Union (EU), which consists of 27 members, committed to reducing its global warming emissions by at least 20 percent of 1990 levels by 2020, to consuming 20 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2020, and to reducing its primary energy use by 20 percent from projected levels through increased energy efficiency.1 The EU has also committed to spending $ 375 billion a year to cut greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80 percent by 2050 compared to 1990 levels.2 The EU is meeting these goals through binding national commitments which vary depending on the unique situation of a given country but which average out to the overall targets.

Australia's climate is expected to become warmer and drier overall.3 In a medium - emissions scenario, 19 temperatures are projected to rise about 1.8 ° F (1 ° C) in the next few decades.3 Rainfall is expected to decline 3 - 5 percent, and evaporation to increase 2 - 4 percent3 — creating conditions conducive to an environment for increasing frequency of bushfires.

Brazil, for example, has reduced its deforestation - related emissions by two - thirds in just six years, and Indonesia, a large emitter of global warming pollution because of high rates of deforestation, has pledged to cut overall emissions by more than 25 percent by 2020.

Defines «reporting entity» to mean: (1) a covered entity; (2) an entity that would be covered if it had emitted, produced, imported, manufactured, or delivered in 2008 or any subsequent year more than the applicable threshold level of carbon dioxide; (3) other entities that EPA determines will help achieve overall goals of reducing global warming pollution; (4) any vehicle fleet with emissions of more than 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent on an annual basis, if its inclusion will help achieve such reduction; (5) any entity that delivers electricity to a facility in an energy - intensive industrial sector that meets the energy or GHG intensity criteria.

«President Trump's withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, combined with the repeal of domestic actions resulting in halting the decline in U.S. emissions, will likely make it more difficult and costly overall to meet the Paris Agreement temperature goal of holding warming well below 2 °C, and limiting it to 1.5 °C,» said Bill Hare, a climate scientist and CEO of Climate Analytics, a group that analyzes climate change scenarios.

By process of elimination, there is net flow of CO2 into vegetation / land (with emissions from them being overall negative aside from fuel combustion), which is unsurprising in contexts ranging from a multitude of studies on co2science.org to how satellite - measured global net terrestrial primary production increased by several percent per decade during the period of global warming (Nemani et al. 2003, for instance).

-- Muller believes humans are changing climate with CO2 emissions — humans have been responsible for «most» of a 0.4 C warming since 1957, almost none of the warming before then — IPCC is in trouble due to sloppy science, exaggerated predictions; chairman will have to resign — the «Climategate» mails were not «hacked» — they were «leaked» by an insider — due to «hide the decline» deception, Muller will not read any future papers by Michael Mann — there has been no increase in hurricanes or tornadoes due to global warming — automobiles are insignificant in overall picture — China is the major CO2 producer, considerably more than USA today — # 1 priority for China is growth of economy — global warming is not considered important — China CO2 efficiency (GDP per ton CO2) is around one - fourth of USA today, has much room for improvement — China growth will make per capita CO2 emissions at same level as USA today by year 2040 — if it is «not profitable» it is «not sustainable» — US energy future depends on shale gas for automobiles; hydrogen will not be a factor — nor will electric cars, due to high cost — Muller is upbeat on nuclear (this was recorded pre-Fukushima)-- there has been no warming in the USA — Muller was not convinced of Hansen's GISS temperature record; hopes BEST will provide a better record.

The backcloth to California's climate — the overall annual precipitation — may not change greatly as the world, and the US with it, warms as a consequence of greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion on a global scale.

In other words, the U.S. is leading all industrialized nations in CO2 reductions — the greenhouse gas responsible for three - fourths of global warming, according to this report — and is also reducing methane emissions that represent a relatively minuscule contribution to the overall GHG radiative forcing (i.e. global warming) identified in this report.

It is a simple way to monitor the overall consistency between the evolving climate change signal, individual countries» pledges and the overall goal of achieving net zero CO2 emissions by the time we reach 2 °C of human - related warming.

• Poles to tropics temperature gradient, average temp of tropics over past 540 Ma; and arguably warming may be net - beneficial overall • Quotes from IPCC AR4 WG1 showing that warming would be beneficial for life, not damaging • Quotes from IPCC AR5 WG3 stating (in effect) that the damage functions used for estimating damages are not supported by evidence • Richard Tol's breakdown of economic impacts of GW by sector • Economic damages of climate change — about the IAMs • McKitrick — Social Cost of Carbon much lower than commonly stated • Bias on impacts of GHG emissions — Figure 1 is a chart showing 15 recent estimates of SCC — Lewis and Curry, 2015, has the lowest uncertainty range.

Volcanic activity puts a great number of gaseous materials into the atmosphere so any warming as a result of severe volcanic events would be more likely a result of increasing overall atmospheric density rather than just being attributable to CO2 emissions.

There are two primary externalities that result from our emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere — 1) an enhancement of the greenhouse effect, which results in an alteration of the energy flow in the earth's climate and a general tendency to warm the global average surface temperature, and 2) an enhancement of the rate of photosynthesis in plants and a general tendency to result in more efficient growth and an overall healthier condition of vegetation (including crops).

Now, new research in Nature Climate Change [1] not only reinforces the reality of this trend — which is already provoking debate about the overall climate consequences of a warming Arctic — but statistically attributes it to human causes, which largely means greenhouse gas emissions (albeit with a mix of other elements as well)

For conscientious consumers who already own a diesel vehicle, filling up with biodiesel may reduce your overall global warming emissions, especially if your biodiesel supplier is focused on waste resources.

The backcloth to California's climate — the overall annual precipitation — may not change greatly as the world, and the U.S. with it, warms as a consequence of greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion on a global scale.

In other words, if it continues, the recent trend in sea ice loss may triple overall Arctic warming, causing large emissions in carbon dioxide and methane from the tundra this century (for a review of recent literature on the tundra, see «Science stunner: Vast East Siberian Arctic Shelf methane stores destabilizing and venting; NSF issues world a wake - up call: «Release of even a fraction of the methane stored in the shelf could trigger abrupt climate warming»).

The overall net emission over this period = + 0.5 units yet we can see how anthropogenic and sea (e.g. warming) contribute equally to this figure while net natural emission (i.e. sea + land) is — 0.5 Do we really know enough about the carbon cycle, in particular the natural fluxes of CO2, to rule out that some thing like this is going on?

With a low - end warming comes low - end impacts and an overall lack of urgency for federal rules and regulations (such as those outlined in the President's Climate Action Plan) to limit carbon dioxide emissions and limit our energy choices.

Claims that specific fires (and forest and wildfires overall) are due to human greenhouse gases have routinely been made since the 1988 testimony of NASA's top climate scientist, James Hansen, predicted that rapid and accelerating warming from GHG emissions would cause more severe and frequent weather events.

Overall, and at least tentatively, some positive climate science - related news — albeit set in the context of atmospheric CO2 being such that even if emissions were reduced to zero today there's enough warming baked into the system that we will cruise past the critical 2 °C warming threshold.

This «overall warming trend» started long before there were any human CO2 emissions to speak of (as we have been emerging from the Little Ice Age) and has continued through the most recent warming.

I am aware of people making the argument that the big push by the nuclear industry for enormous government subsidies to find a massive expansion of nuclear power on the basis that nuclear power is «THE ANSWER» to global warming is a fraud that dishonestly and cynically takes advantage of growing concern about the very real problem of global warming, and I make that argument myself (because even a quite large expansion of nuclear electricity generation would have little effect on overall GHG emissions, at great cost, taking too long to achieve even that little effect, while misdirecting resources that could more effectively be applied elsewhere).