Sentences with phrase «what about the carbon dioxide»

Switching tacks here, what about carbon dioxide capture and storage?

Salzar and Kipfmueller use temperature and precipitation as dependent variables, but what about carbon dioxide (and it fertilization effect)?

Not exact matches

What current atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration tells us about the need to stabilise the global climate and the need for a step change in government, city and business action.

If it's not the increased carbon dioxide though, then what should we do about climate change?

It also stirred confusion about the governor's legal authority and what will happen to the carbon trading program, which caps utility carbon dioxide emissions in 10 Northeastern and mid-Atlantic states, at a time when national climate legislation appears dead on Capitol Hill.

He wants to know why Earth's global climate models break down on Venus, which has an atmosphere composed of 97 percent carbon dioxide — and what that reveals about the hidden fine - tunings of Earth models.

Bean and Kempton, meanwhile, are interested in detailing what a statistical census of biologically significant gases such as oxygen, carbon dioxide and ozone could reveal about planetary habitability.

Fossil fuels cost a lot of money and [have] a lot of climate impact; that's something we haven't covered either, but this plan will also reduce carbon dioxide emissions to about a third of what they are now [by] 2050, assuming some level of growth as well.

Given what scientists know about the Red Planet's atmosphere, these clouds likely consist of either carbon dioxide or water - based ice crystals.

«What's different [about carbon dioxide] is the scale and the disruption in the energy system from having to transition from carbon - intensive fuels to carbon neutrality,» he added.

Given that solar output four billion years ago was only about 60 percent of what it is today, enhanced levels of carbon dioxide and perhaps ammonia (NH3) must have been present in order to retard the loss of infrared radiation into space.

Updates below InsideClimate News, showing the value of focused and sustained investigative reporting, has published the first piece in an illuminating review of what Exxon Mobil Corp. (and its earlier incarnations) learned through its own research from the 1970s onward about the potential climate impacts of rising emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel use.

To understand why India, despite its fast - growing emissions, has demanded and gotten what its environment minister called «carbon space,» just do a side by side comparison of the United States, where the average person's activities result in about 17 tons of carbon dioxide emissions a year, and India, where 400 million people still lack an electric light or clean cooking fuel and where per capita annual emissions are 1.9 tons per person.

I don't believe 80 % of what I read about the consequences of global warming and I certainly don't believe there is any crisis, but there is enough evidence to warrant reductions in carbon dioxide, changes in energy consumption and mix and fostering of new technologies.

While retaining a technical question about aviation law, the half - hour excerpt from the 75 - minute discussion did not include Mr. Branson's comments about what he said was his most important public priority — working for peace in conflict zones — and his long, and provocative, statements on carbon dioxide and climate, including his thoughts on geo - engineering, his big prize for removing CO2 from the air and the climate treaty.

Hales» pioneering research in ocean carbon chemistry underlies much of what we know about the role carbon dioxide from fossil fuel emissions plays in changing the chemistry of Northwest seas.

I'll be writing more on the scope of what would have to happen to stop the buildup of carbon dioxide at just about any of the concentration peaks that have been tossed around lately as either «safe» or not totally calamitous.

First, we talked about revived interest in mass transportation, about the different roles and responsibilities of local communities and the federal government, and about what opportunities and hurdles face the next president, even as both candidates have pledged to cap carbon dioxide and pursue an effective climate treaty.

Updated, 8:38 p.m. There are new revelations from the continuing InsideClimate News investigation of what the oil industry knew about the potential climate impacts of carbon dioxide from fuel burning even as it sought delays in related national and international policies.

I still think this 2010 paper by Howard J. Herzog at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology very nicely lays out what to look for to gauge if countries are serious about this issue: «Scaling up carbon dioxide capture and storage: From megatons to gigatons.»

Fourthly, when talking about becoming «Carbon - free» or «Carbon Neutral» or reducing our «Carbon Footprint» let's just bear in mind that from a scienitifc viewpoint — what is really being talked about is CARBON DIOXIDE.

All he knows is what IPCC has been touting about carbon dioxide, to them the chief greenhouse gas on this planet.

The work in question takes measurements from one locale, and doesn't publish conclusions, rather Doney's statements are giving his opinion about what he read, «Long - term ocean acidification trends are clearly evident over the past several decades in open - ocean time - series and hydrographic survey data, and the trends are consistent with the growth rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide (Dore et al., 2009).»

But in Issues, analysts have identified a more fundamental problem — the social cost of carbon dioxide is the wrong guide to follow — and they proposed an alternative method that better reflects what is known about long - term effects of climate change and how these effects should be valued by today's decision - makers.

This can be compared with some 200 W / m2 from direct sunshine, and about 6 W / m2 for what climate change models predict will happen if the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide doubles.

It's quite okay to buy those carbon - intensive fuels, which speaks volumes about what's the real agenda here: protecting the interests of the fossil fuel industry, even though producing synthetic fuels using Nazi - era technology actually produces more carbon dioxide than burning petroleum itself.

It took about one percent of the world economy to develop the modern infrastructure of clean water and indoor plumbing; that's roughly what will be required to get rid of «another kind of human waste» — carbon dioxide emissions from burning fuels.

The carbon emissions from fossil fuel use might have increased global mean temperature by about one - sixth of one degree, so what's with all the fuss about carbon dioxide?

A generally accepted answer is that a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (it turns out that one gets the same value for a doubling regardless of what value one starts from) would perturb the energy balance of Earth about 2 percent, and this would produce about 2 degrees Fahrenheit warming in the absence of feedbacks.

George E. Smith (16:11:36): «''» A generally accepted answer is that a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (it turns out that one gets the same value for a doubling regardless of what value one starts from) would perturb the energy balance of Earth about 2 percent, and this would produce about 2 degrees Fahrenheit warming in the absence of feedbacks.

'' the greenhouse forcing from manmade gases is already about 86 percent of what one expects from a doubling of carbon dioxide»

The carbon dioxide stored in oceans is presently about one - third of what the oceans can take.

Thank you for responding... the question at hand is not about whether carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation: what is being asked for is the replicable experiments which verify the hypothesis (postulated by Mr. Guy Callendar et al) that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere would change the height where the absorption took place.

So, solutions to — if you are really concerned about the carbon dioxide then how can you create energy that is affordable — that's the only kind that really works in the economy — what choices are out there?

That stubborn error in the satellite data is about six times larger than what is scientifically possible, and several times larger than the effect scientists are trying to see, namely planetary warming caused by continued massive emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

This route of consideration entails the inference of what we'll call each respective warmist's primary and secondary gain motivating his allegiance to this objectively insupportable (and factually unsupported) damnfool contention about the adverse effects of anthropogenic atmospheric carbon dioxide and — much more importantly — the political measures being pushed by each such statist sumbeech in order to allegedly ameliorate the tissue - of - lies «externalities» nonsensically asserted to be associated with the complete combustion of petrochemical fuels upon which all of industrial civilization depends for its function.

It also depends on what assumptions you make about how effective carbon - emissions control is; Lenton and Vaughan calculate all the forcings in terms of what extra relief the carbon - dioxide drawdown provides in a world that is already making serious cuts in emissions).

That's what two men named David thought, too, when they first met in 2008 to talk about a climate policy with very little support: a national tax on industrial carbon dioxide emissions.

And in either scenario, I want to know what the models can say about the hysteresis in the system: how much ice lost at higher carbon - dioxide levels does not come back at lower ones.

The first of these concerns the terrestrial and oceanic processes that release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and then absorb them, and the second is a calculation about what a change in carbon dioxide levels really means for average global temperatures.

We're at about 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions a year — and notwithstanding the global economic slowdown, probably poised to rise 2 % per year (the exact future growth rate is quite hard to project because it depends so much on what China does and how quickly peak oil kicks in).

What fraction will leak as methane, and what fraction will leak as carbon dioxide — and what about What fraction will leak as methane, and what fraction will leak as carbon dioxide — and what about what fraction will leak as carbon dioxide — and what about what about N2O?

The most optimistic says the increase by 2100 will be about 4 degrees F, the least 9 degrees F. Between 1980 and 1995 there were more than 50 «scientific» papers published predicting what air temperature would be if the carbon dioxide concentration doubled.

Callendar's own calculations, giving a 2 °C temperature rise for a carbon dioxide doubling, were slated: one major criticism was that they dealt only with radiation and left out the effects of that other important way in which heat is moved around, convection, despite what Hulburt had already written about that.

None of these could have been caused by an increase in atmospheric CO2, Model projections of warming during recent decades have greatly exceeded what has been observed, The modelling community has openly acknowledged that the ability of existing models to simulate past climates is due to numerous arbitrary tuning adjustments, Observations show no statistically valid trends in flooding or drought, and no meaningful acceleration whatsoever of pre-existing long term sea level rise (about 6 inches per century) worldwide, Current carbon dioxide levels, around 400 parts per million are still very small compared to the averages over geological history, when thousands of parts per million prevailed, and when life flourished on land and in the oceans.

Climate models encapsulate what we know about how the Sun's rays travel through the atmosphere and how heat from the surface of the Earth gets absorbed by clouds, water vapour and, of course, carbon dioxide.

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.