Sentences with phrase «whether global greenhouse»

The rate of increase depends on whether global greenhouse gases follow a low or high emission scenario.

Not exact matches

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt did not confirm whether the United States would remain in the global climate change pact, under which nearly all countries agreed in 2015 to halt or curb their greenhouse gas emissions, even as the world's biggest emitter China reaffirmed its commitment to the agreement.

By Linda Hasenfratz and Hal KvislePublished in the Hill Times - December 13, 2010 Despite clear signs of progress in building an international consensus, the outcome of the latest round of UN climate change negotiations in Cancun appears to have fallen short of the target: a clear and comprehensive plan to reduce global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.Many of the most contentious issues remain unresolved, including whether to incorporate the negotiators» goals in a legally binding agreement and how...

Consider the question of whether we need now to take steps to slow down global warming through the greenhouse effect.

After President George W. Bush rejected the Kyoto Protocol this spring, «countries had to rethink whether they wanted to do this,» says Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change in Arlington, Virginia, an organization dedicated to reducing greenhouse emissions.

But this new package does include for the first time all countries working towards a global reduction of greenhouse gases, whether developed or developing.

Using global climate models is a way that scientists can size up climate outcomes using inputs of historical measurements and estimates of future conditions, depending on whether greenhouse gases are held steady, increase, or decline.

Your earlier # 182 was equally disconcerting where you quoted Norris and Slingo (2009) saying «At present, it is not known whether changes in cloudiness will exacerbate, mitigate, or have little effect on the increasing global surface temperature caused by anthropogenic greenhouse radiative forcing.»

Consequently, as they say slightly earlier in the abstract: «At present, it is not known whether changes in cloudiness will exacerbate, mitigate, or have little effect on the increasing global surface temperature caused by anthropogenic greenhouse radiative forcing.»

Specifically on the issue of global warming from greenhouse gases and climate change, the conference reached a consensus on the likelihood of a rise in the global mean temperature of between 2.7 - 8 degrees F (1.5 - 4.5 degrees C) by about 2050, but not on whether such warming has begun.

As I've said above, my concern in this thread is solely in the critically important question as to whether or not there is any likelihood that the world will achieve the drastic and immediate cuts in global greenhouse gas emissions that many scientists say are essential if we are to avoid serious consequences.

The fate of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, he suggested, would be determined by whether or not it would contribute to global warming through a net increase in greenhouse gases — or not.

The most statistics can tell us at present is that there does appear to be a genuine warming trend in figure A. Whether this trend is the effect of greenhouse gas emissions or of a natural fluctuation due to some as - yet - undiscovered mechanism can not be determined from an analysis of the global mean temperature alone.

Whether we look at the steady increase in global temperature; the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to the highest level in a half - million years; the march of warmest - ever years (9 of the10 hottest on record have occurred since 2000); the dramatic shrinking of mountain glaciers and Arctic sea ice; the accelerating rise in sea level; or the acidification of our oceans; the tale told by the evidence is consistent and it is compelling.

The so - called hotspot is not something a feature specific to greenhouse gas induced warming but of any global warming, whether its due to increased levels of greenhouse gases or increases in solar radiation.

While the greenhouse effect is undeniably real, and while most scientists agree that there has been a rise in global temperatures caused in some part by human emissions of carbon dioxide, no one knows how much more warming will occur this century or whether it will be dangerous.

First, whether or not the MWP or LIA were global in extent has nothing to do with AGW, which is based upon the known radiative effect of greenhouse gases and the amounts we are pumping into the atmosphere.

But CRS noted that the effect on global greenhouse gas emissions depends on whether the project accelerates tar sands extraction in Canada.

Whether or not the increase of atmospheric greenhouse gases is the fundamental basis for global warming is the focus of the debate.

Given the importance of the scientific consensus on human - caused global warming in peoples» decisions whether to support action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and the public lack of awareness of the consensus, we need to make people aware of these results.

However, uncertainties regarding how future emissions translate into climate change at global and regional levels remain significant, and therefore it is difficult to draw robust conclusions regarding whether a particular greenhouse gas stabilization pathway would or would not allow residual risk to be successfully managed through adaptation.

Therefore, in order to check if man - made global warming theory is valid, it is important to check whether or not the greenhouse effect theory is valid.

«A global freeze will come about regardless of whether or not industrialized countries put a cap on their greenhouse gas emissions.

Awareness of the scientific consensus on human - caused global warming is a key factor in peoples» decisions whether or not to support action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Yet when US federal climate change legislation was under consideration between 2009 and 2010, there was almost no public discussion about whether proposed US climate change legislation would reduce US greenhouse gas emissions to levels that represent the US fair share of safe global emissions.

We also tackle some of the more vexing questions, like whether British Columbia ports have the capacity to handle the export proposals, and whether US coal exports add to global greenhouse gas emissions.

The only question that needs to be examined to trigger a responsibility to begin to make immediate reductions in greenhouse gas emissions is whether the nation is exceeding its fair share of safe global emissions.

If the alarmists are wrong about even one or two of them, human greenhouse gas emissions move out of the realm of a nuisance requiring a response — whether by governments or via a (presently nonexistent) global property rights regime — and into the realm of speculation.

CEO Rupert Murdoch that the media conglomerate is joining the battle to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the big question here at DeSmogBlog is whether this means Fox News will end its peddling in global warming junk science.

Scientists of the time disagreed on whether the greatest global risk was cooling by atmospheric pollution or greenhouse effect warming.

Whether a 2C or a 1.5 C goal, limiting global warming is only achievable if global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions reach zero within this century.

The promise will begin to take concrete form as soon as all 196 UN members submit their «intended nationally determined commitments» (INDCs), which will determine whether the world can stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere and limit global temperature rise to 2 degrees Centigrade in order to prevent the worst impacts of climate change.

And his PIK colleague, Anders Levermann, professor of the dynamics of the climate system, says: «So far, we lack sufficient evidence to say whether the Amundsen ice destabilisation is due to greenhouse gases and the resulting global warming.

Or about whether a certain greenhouse gas is a significant cause of global warming.

The real question is whether or not Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming due to C02 and other «greenhouse» gases is a useful description of modern climate.

The general question surrounding the prevention of climate change is whether the earth can avoid a 2 °C situation — that is, whether we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions swiftly enough to keep global average surface temperatures from rising to 2 °C (3.6 °F) above pre-industrial levels.

Whether its the old NASA computer model simulations or the newer variety of IPCC climate models, Hansen's 1988 prediction of rapidly accelerating and dangerous global warming from human CO2, and other greenhouse gases, has done poorly in comparison to actual observed temps.

Whether or not global warming is entirely or largely due to human use of carbon for fuel, the reduction of the dependence on carbon makes sense for reducing asthma in children; reducing black lung disease; reducing the production of coal ashes, residues, and effluents; reducing the impact of carbon greenhouse gasses; reducing pipeline failures; reducing coal and oil surface transport accidents; reducing pipeline - related warfare; and reducing air pollution.

Among other things, the authors state that [1] «scientists do not know how large the greenhouse effect is, whether it will lead to a harmful amount of global warming, or (if it will) what should be done about it» (p. 560); [2] that «profound disagreements» about global warming exist within the scientific community (p. 560); [3] that so - called «activist scientists» say that the earth's climate is warming (p. 560); [4] that «science doesn't know whether we are experiencing a dangerous level of global warming or how bad the greenhouse effect Is, if it exists at all» (p. 569); [5] and that global warming is «enmeshed in scientific uncertainty» (p. 573).

The Environmental Protection Agency's new leadership, in a step toward confronting global warming, submitted a finding that will force the White House to decide whether to limit greenhouse gas emissions under the nearly 40 - year - old Clean Air Act.

In 2007, the Supreme Court instructed the Bush administration to determine whether greenhouse gases should be regulated under the Clean Air Act, but last July, then - EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson announced that the agency would instead seek months of public comment on the threat posed by global - warming pollution.

It is unclear to me whether they ruled this because greenhouse gases cause global warming, which is harmful, or if the greenhouse gases themselves are harmful for humans to inhale.

And they learn to reject science whenever it comes into conflict with their libertarian ideology, whether it happens to be in the area of carcinogenic dioxins, ozone - destroying CFCs, asbestos - related lung disease, tobacco with all of its associated diseases or anthropogenic global warming due to greenhouse gas emissions.

Recent high profile heat waves, such as the one in Texas and Oklahoma in the summer of 2011, raise the question of whether these extreme events are related to the on - going global warming trend, which has been attributed with a high degree of confidence to human - made greenhouse gases (4).

Anyway, it seems like «global brightening» and variations in cloud cover has more to do with any ocean heating than the direct greenhouse effect, which is why I question whether the «missing heat» is really there.

If we're serious about putting the brakes on global warming, the question is not whether we should put a value on greenhouse gas pollution, but how we should do it.

The evidence is still unclear on whether we run a substantial chance of triggering a Canfield ocean and a greenhouse extinction if we let global warming get out of hand.

2007/04/19: ENN: Canada Mulls Diluting Emissions Targets As recently as last week Canadian officials mulled whether to weaken the government's commitment to cut emissions of greenhouse gases blamed for global warming, according to a leaked document.

Whether G20 countries embrace responsible climate policy is of critical importance, since together they account for roughly 80 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions and 80 percent of global GDP.