Sentences with phrase «what about those greenhouse gases»

So what about those greenhouse gases that man pumps into the skies?

Not exact matches

California Vineyard Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Assessment of the Available Literature and Determination of Research Needs - A summary report of a literature review used to determine what was known about California vineyard GHG production and sequestration potential.

A major test of the world's willingness to phase out greenhouse gases will arrive in December, when nations gather in Paris to try to agree on what to do about climate change.

In the 487th Brookhaven Lecture, Stephen Schwartz speaks about his research on why Earth's temperature has not increased as much as expected from the observed increase in greenhouse gases, and what this might mean for the future.

However, it is the atmosphere with increased greenhouse gases which makes the additional insulation and this is what effects the changing radiative fluxes that we are talking about.

«If we assume an optimistic scenario for greenhouse gas emissions — the RCP 2.6 scenario, [see Fact Box] which would result in a warming of about two degrees Celsius — then we can expect an increase in sea level similar to what we see in this video,» says climate modeller Martin Stendel from the Danish Meteorological Institute, Copenhagen.

«The idea behind this index is to determine what the temperature increase will be by the decade when anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing — which is dominated by CO2 — doubles what it was in about 1880,» Christy said.

To better understand what Kilimanjaro and other tropical glaciers are telling us about climate change, one ultimately ought to drive a set of tropical glacier models with GCM simulations conducted with and without anthropogenic forcing (greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosol).

[It is helps us to understand what natural forces are currently at work that could be causing changes... But note that some natural forces like the ones that I talked about above work over much longer timescales than the century timescale over which we are making significant changes in greenhouse gas levels.

Second, having not succeeded in finding an alternative, they haven't even tried to do what would be logically necessary if they had one, which is to explain how it can be that everything modern science tells us about the interactions of greenhouse gases with energy flow in the atmosphere is wrong.»

My interst in doing this has been to 1) first of all, to investigate if any fears whatsoever are remotely justified for «greenhouse gas» composition changes in the atmosphere 2) to examine how a theory was developed that indicated cause for concern and 3) communicate what I know that can not possibly be true, within the realm of phyical law about claims made in regard to any possible danger associated with greenhouse gases.

What about hydropower, which is billed as a sustainable form of electricity generation because it produces far fewer greenhouse gas emissions than fossil fuels?

what DO they say about increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?

Of course, if you're serious about stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, achieving the American goal in 2020 is just step one in what would have to be a centurylong 12 - step (or more) program to completely decouple global energy use from processes that generate heat - trapping emissions.

But, in the mean time the question is what to do about rising sea levels which, even without anthropogenic contributions of greenhouse gases, would rise and fall as they always have.

After hearing the speeches, and knowing what you do about the trajectory of emissions here and overseas, what's your personal sense of the likelihood the world will see a price on greenhouse gas emissions sufficient to shift choices in energy sources or technologies?

Those against will be Daniel M. Kammen, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, focused on renewable and «appropriate» energy technology and a senior energy adviser to the Obama campaign; Oliver Tickell, an environmental writer / campaigner in search of what he calls Kyoto2, a framework for controlling greenhouse gases that is effective, efficient and equitable; and Adam Werbach, who gained fame as the youngest president of the Sierra Club (elected at 23), but now is focused on «blue» marketing for business growth framed around sustainability, as the head of Saatchi & Saatchi S. I'll have to ask him about how that works.

The team ran a suite of 400 computer simulations incorporating both what is known about how the climate could react to a greenhouse - gas buildup and a wide range of variations in the global economy and other human factors that might affect the outcome.

By that I mean an unvarnished depiction of what science has, and has not, revealed about the potential for dangerous outcomes from the building blanket of human - generated greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and about the strengths and limits of possible responses.

What's important here, and remains important, scientists say, is how the patterns of atmospheric and climatic change reveal the most about the involvement of greenhouse gases, not simply the change in global temperature.

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.

These feedbacks and their complex relations make me sceptical about our ability to predict what effects our greenhouse gas emissions have on the climate.

Industry groups are wringing their hands about what it will mean to have greenhouse gases regulated under the Clean Air Act, and enviros are chomping at the bit for the agency to get to work.

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

What's more, continually increasing greenhouse gases increase the imbalance by about 0.3 W / m2 per decade even as the planet warms and radiates some extra heat back to space.

One reason for being confident about there being much more uncertaintly than the 97 % concensus suggests is that there is nothing like a concensus, let alone proof, of what caused (and causes) the extreme natural variations in climate throughout geological time.This variation is well documented and almost certainly has a variety of underlying causes which are likely to be very different from C02 or other MM emissions even if higher greenhouse gases levels have often been present.

According tot he Cato Institute, the event summarizes «what is known about the science and economics surrounding greenhouse gas concentrations and abatement.

Question: What does your study conclude about Climate Sensitivity (e.g., how much warming we expect for a given change in greenhouse gasses)?

Indeed, governments and scientists began talking seriously about radical cuts to greenhouse gas emissions in 1988 — the exact year that marked the dawning of what came to be called «globalization,» with the signing of the agreement representing the world's largest bilateral trade relationship between Canada and the United States, later to be expanded into the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with the inclusion of Mexico.25

What's most offensive and cruel about Shuford's recent letter is his suggestion that we focus solely on climate adaptation rather than reducing greenhouse - gas emissions.

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..

The statement you object to is in fact accurate, and is based on a simple calculation starting with what is understood by science about man - made greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.

Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch Here in Minnesota, where Iâ $ ™ ve been the last two days talking about the stateâ $ ™ s Climate Change Advisory Group and explaining what can be expected in their recommendations, the Center for Climate Strategies has not been able to push all their greenhouse gas - reduction ideas as robustly as they have been able -LSB-...]

Yet nary a word about what's actually reducing greenhouse gases better than heavy handed government: the free market.

As a result of this progress, Canadians are saving about $ 5 billion per year in energy costs, and greenhouse gas emissions are five percent below what they would otherwise have been.

Given the magnitude of potential harms from climate change, those who make skeptical arguments against the mainstream scientific view on climate change have a duty to submit skeptical arguments to peer - review, acknowledge what is not in dispute about climate change science and not only focus on what is unknown, refrain from making specious claims about mainstream science of climate change such as the entire scientific basis for climate change has been completely debunked, and assume the burden of proof to show that emissions of greenhouse gases are benign.

Much of what one often hears about greenhouse gas emissions from dams being minimal is based on the world's existing dams with measurements of emissions.

In regards to Kyoto, what I always try to emphasize is that it is not so much about the specific emission cuts as it is about putting a price on greenhouse gas emissions so that the market will respond by developing the technologies to minimize (and / or sequester) those emissions.

Yet its absorptive tholin stratosphere interrupts so much solar energy that Titan's final surface temperature suffers from what is called an «anti-greenhouse effect» — ironically brought about by «greenhouse gases».

This is what the ESRL had to say about satellite - based COs sensing and I quote «Greenhouse gas abundances derived from optical absorption measurements from space can never be calibrated because one can not control the abundance of the gases being estimated, nor can we control potential interfering factors in the optical path.»

Yet, participants in the climate change disinformation machine often speak as if it is inappropriate to talk about duties to reduce greenhouse gases until science is capable of proving with high levels of certainty what actual damages will be.

And what exactly would be changed, if the public were educated about aerosols and greenhouse gases and temperature histories and the fact that at least 50 % of the 0.5 - 0.9 C change compared to 200 years ago is with 90 to 99 % likelihood due to the net effect of anthropogenic factors?

The the glowing H2O and CO2 molecule is what the Greenhouse theory is «all about» - but these glowing molecules are not warmer than a non glowing CO2 molecule of gas.

What about an internal cycle, perhaps from volcanoes or the ocean, that releases massive amounts of greenhouse gases?

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

I interpret the question is about what the USA could do to mitigate «greenhouse - gas driven global warming».

What might be most significant about the U.S. commitment is that it details how we plan to achieve our carbon pollution goals through existing programs like the fuel economy standards for cars and trucks and upcoming rules to limit greenhouse gases from power plants.

RGATES Yes thanks, That much was already clear from your earlier comments though, and doesn't relate to my question — which has I fear has itself become unclear due to my attempts to rephrase it... Anyway, so we understand that there can be factors other than greenhouses gasses warming the earth, but that's not what I'm asking about.

Here you can learn more about what renewable energy is doing for Canadians, the need for alternative green solutions, the need to counter greenhouse gases and the importance of leadership to drive change.

Based on current knowledge, however, it appears that achieving a high probability of limiting global average temperature rise to 2C will require that the increase in greenhouse - gas concentrations as well as all the other warming and cooling influences on global climate in the year 2100, as compared with 1750, should add up to a net warming no greater than what would be associated with a CO2 concentration of about 400 parts per million (ppm).