Sentences with phrase «why atmospheric levels»

Turning up the heat seems to increase the rate at which the plants produce methane, Keppler says, which could explain why atmospheric levels of methane were high hundreds of thousands of years ago when global temperatures were balmy.

Not exact matches

Marcus, why do you assume that one can't use steady state calculations for modeling the levels of atmospheric CO2?

but why is the increased atmospheric moisture level going to result in increased perception in the desert of Antarctica?

Then why all the discussion and angst about human trace addition to the level of a trace atmospheric gas: CO2?

Why are the global atmospheric concentrations of methane leveling off?

we should have a good explanation why the average surface temperatures have not risen since 1998 even though CO2 atmospheric levels have increased (like you would expect from a simplistic model).

Would you care to explain to me why you are confident about the estimates of atmospheric aerosol levels that are available for that period?

Logarithmic diminution effect explains why there wasn't any run ¬ away «green ¬ house» warming way in dinosaur days when atmospheric CO2 levels were several thousands of ppm, and why (try as they might to convince us) there can't ever be runaway warming now.

In comparing annual human CO2 emissions with annual increase in atmospheric CO2, it was always a mystery to me why human CO2 emissions showed such a poor correlation with changes in atmospheric CO2 levels if human emissions were supposed to be driving the atmospheric levels, but his lecture explains this very clearly.

This fact explains why all future scenarios holding atmospheric CO2 constant at some specified level need to drive emissions gradually to zero.

That's why I agree with Jim D that we will not be able to reduce atmospheric CO2 concentrations below today's levels or even reduce CO2 emissions to half of the current levels in a world with a growing population overall and with the rapid development of giant underdeveloped nations, such as China and India.

Although some nations have acknowledged their ethical duties to base their INDC on ethically justifiable criteria, almost all INDC submissions have not explained how specific emissions reductions commitments link to a specific desired atmospheric ghg concentration levels and its associated carbon budget that will provide some level of confidence that a warming limit will be achieved nor why their ghg emissions reductions commitment is fair as a matter of distributive justice.

Cohenite — if all this is so seriously wrong at a fundamental level, why have all these atmospheric physics types, remote sensing types, and modellers been getting answers that work out?