Sentences with phrase «with human greenhouse gas»

Dozens of climate scientists are trying to block the DVD release of a controversial Channel 4 programme that claimed global warming is nothing to do with human greenhouse gas emissions.

By comparing values of these parameters from the mid-19 century to now, they can estimate how much the earth warmed in association with human greenhouse gas emissions.

Associated with human greenhouse gas production is the release of fine particle known as aerosols which have a temporary cooling effect (they last in the atmosphere less than a week).

Not exact matches

Exxon has argued against all the other shareholder proposals as well, including a «policy to explicitly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity»; a policy articulating Exxon's «respect for and commitment to the human right to water»; «a report discussing possible long term risks to the company's finances and operations posed by the environmental, social and economic challenges associated with the oil sands»; a report of «known and potential environmental impacts» and «policy options» to address the impacts of the company's «fracturing operations»; a report of recommendations on how Exxon can become an «environmentally sustainable energy company»; and adoption of «quantitative goals... for reducing total greenhouse gas emissions.»

... A number of scientific studies indicate that most global warming in recent decades is due to the great concentration of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen oxides and others) released mainly as a result of human activity... Doomsday predictions can no longer be met with irony or disdain.

But that may be about to change, thanks to a new type of climate study that can connect individual weather events with the impact of human - made greenhouse gas emissions.

In its 2007 report, the IPCC concluded with 90 percent certainty that human - caused greenhouse gas emissions have been the primary factor in Earth's overall temperature rise since 1950.

«There is a certain ironic satisfaction in seeing a study funded by the Koch Brothers — the greatest funders of climate change denial and disinformation on the planet — demonstrate what scientists have known with some degree of confidence for nearly two decades: that the globe is indeed warming, and that this warming can only be explained by human - caused increases in greenhouse gas concentrations,» he wrote.

The ability of the oceans to take up carbon dioxide can not keep up with the rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which means carbon dioxide and global temperatures will continue to increase unless humans cut their carbon dioxide emissions.

The vigorous, vehement and vexed reactions to any piece I have written that mentions climate change, combined with the power of greed on the one hand and the struggle for subsistence on the other, have convinced me there is no chance that governments will significantly reduce the output of industrial greenhouse gases in time to stave off considerable change to the planet's climate and to human habitats.

That has squeezed out the Quino checkerspot butterfly's habitat, and with the climate changes coming as a result of human greenhouse gas emissions, its listing as an endangered species by the U.S. government may not be enough to save the pretty little butterfly from extinction.

This time, no return to cooler period Tim Barnett, a climatologist at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, said the new results appear to agree with his earlier work that used climate models to show humans» greenhouse gas emissions have contributed to declining snowpack in the western United States.

But along with the notorious polar vortex, the year also brought new evidence that human activities are altering the climate in ever more obvious ways — and that the risks of severe impacts rise with every ton of greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere.

Researchers accounted for human influence on climate by estimating the present - day chances of Harvey's rainfall totals and then comparing them with 1950s greenhouse gas levels.

This unconscious process is yet another way humans contribute to the accumulation of the greenhouse gas in the atmosphere — albeit in a minuscule volume compared with burning fossil fuels.

With the human population continuing to rise by 75 million or more per year and with torrid economic growth in much of the developing world, the burdens of deforestation, pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, species extinction, ocean acidification and other massive threats intensWith the human population continuing to rise by 75 million or more per year and with torrid economic growth in much of the developing world, the burdens of deforestation, pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, species extinction, ocean acidification and other massive threats intenswith torrid economic growth in much of the developing world, the burdens of deforestation, pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, species extinction, ocean acidification and other massive threats intensify.

Yet despite all the complexities, a firm and ever - growing body of evidence points to a clear picture: the world is warming, this warming is due to human activity increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and if emissions continue unabated the warming will too, with increasingly serious consequences.

That December, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported that greenhouse gases were rising, with human activity the likely cause and dangerous changes in the earth's conditions a likely result.

In the time since the 2007 version of this report, the human effect on the climate has grown more than 40 percent stronger, thanks to continued emissions of greenhouse gases and more precision in measurements, with carbon dioxide leading the charge.

But these days, with many scientists are focused on tracking greenhouse gases produced by human activities at national, regional and local scales, the current monitoring network doesn't measure up.

Soon is a leading skeptic of the widely accepted science surrounding climate change, In the International Journal of Public Opinion Research, a study titled «The Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change» found that 97 percent of scientists surveyed believed global warming already is ongoing, with 84 percent of scientists surveyed believing human - produced greenhouse gases were the driving force behind the change.

The ultimate objective of all agreements under the UNFCCC is to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that will prevent dangerous human interference with the climate system, in a time frame which allows ecosystems to adapt naturally and enables sustainable development.

«Recent warming coincides with rapid growth of human - made greenhouse gases.

Along with human - caused warming from greenhouse gases, summers and winters are expected to continue heating up.

Known as a «co-benefit,» using state of the art models for human and natural systems, along with climate projections from the international community, the team was able for the first time to put a value on the global air pollution benefits of cutting greenhouse gas emissions over the 21st century.

«Climate models can easily make assumptions about reductions in future greenhouse gas emissions and project the implications, but they do this with no rational basis for human responses,» Gross said.

The ultimate objective of both treaties is to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that will prevent dangerous human interference with the climate system.

In other words, there is no warming effect of greenhouse gases and humans can carry on with Business As Usual, including massive burn of fossil fuels.

And we're pushing on it with growing force, through the rapid buildup of long - lived greenhouse gases flowing from human activities (including burning all that oil we're sucking from seabeds).

First, they have not come up with any plausible alternative culprit for the disruption of global climate that is being observed, for example, a culprit other than the greenhouse - gas buildups in the atmosphere that have been measured and tied beyond doubt to human activities.

After each of its four reports so far — including the pivotal 2007 assessment that concluded with 90 percent confidence that greenhouse gases from humans were the main force behind recent warming --- the panel leadership has met to consider changing how it works.

Mr. McCain has been an interesting voice on global warming, given that he broke with President Bush and most of his party years ago, acknowledging that the buildup of greenhouse gases from human activities was risky and mandatory steps were needed to curb emissions.

While the report included strong statements pointing to a growing human influence on climate, Mr. Bush's critics asserted that the emphasis on unknowns gave the administration cover to avoid quickly pushing forward with actions to limit greenhouse - gas emissions.

Karelin et al (2017) «Human footprints on greenhouse gas fluxes in cryogenic ecosystems» This paper presents no evidence on the subject being concerned with direct human impacts on CH4 emissions (which it says will result in a decrease in CH4 emissiHuman footprints on greenhouse gas fluxes in cryogenic ecosystems» This paper presents no evidence on the subject being concerned with direct human impacts on CH4 emissions (which it says will result in a decrease in CH4 emissihuman impacts on CH4 emissions (which it says will result in a decrease in CH4 emissions).

By the way, I'd just like to mention that I am far happier to be arguing about the comparative benefits of nuclear power, wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, conservation, efficiency, reforestation, organic agriculture, etc. for quickly reducing CO2 emissions and concentrations, than to be engaged in yet another argument with someone who doesn't believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or that human activities are not causing warming, or that the Earth is cooling, or thinks that AGW is a «liberal» conspiracy to destroy capitalism, etc..

I have yet to see anyone provide definitive evidence — with no error bars — that the fingerprint of human - generated greenhouse gases (or other emissions or actions) is unequivocal.

This is the same problem as for volcanoes except that it takes thousands of years for an ice age to develop and human prevention of this happening with greenhouse gasses will be very uncertain to predict for more than one hundred years so an odds calculation would, necessarily, require exact specification of conditions.

Much less challenging, and high profile, is the need, in a world heading toward nine billion people, to figure out how to make everything that's been learned about drought, floods, and other climate - related risks useful to the majority of the human population — people in Niger and Bangladesh who face such risks every day right now, with or without whatever climate destabilization is coming from the ongoing buildup of greenhouse gases.

Richard Lindzen, the meteorology professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology best known for his longstanding rejection of research pointing to dangerous climate disruption from human - generated greenhouse gases, has been bluntly challenged over a popular paper in Geophysical Research Letters last year that he co-wrote with post-doctoral researcher Yong - Sang Choi.

Planet Under Pressure, a four - day conference exploring how science can identify and limit risks in the face of increasing human impacts on the Earth, has ended * with a call for «urgent action» against the the unrelenting buildup of greenhouse gases.

Updated, 11:28 a.m. With climate treaty negotiations expected to intensify next year, China is signaling that it may soon set the timetable for hitting an eventual peak in its emissions of carbon dioxide, the most important human - generated greenhouse gas.

In 2002, the president said: «I reaffirm America's commitment to the United Nations Framework Convention and its central goal, to stabilize atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations at a level that will prevent dangerous human interference with the climate.»

As for the ethics of all of this, Donald A. Brown of Pennsylvania State University argues that the world's top emitters of greenhouse gases are morally obligated to curb carbon dioxide and similar emissions based on the level of certainty that is already established on the impacts of those emissions — most of which will be in poorer places with small contributions to the human - caused gas buildup in the atmosphere.

Keep in mind that the overwhelming majority of greenhouse gases have been, and continue to be, emitted by the massive fossil fuel consumption of a tiny percentage of the Earth's human population, most of them in countries with low rates of population growth — and that the overwhelming majority of human beings on the Earth, particularly those in countries with relatively high rates of population growth, generate only a small amount of greenhouse gases.

(The climate panel definition includes both human - driven and natural change; the treaty process only deals with climate change driven by the buildup of greenhouse gases.)

Another, of course, is that the science illuminating the extent of the human influence on climate is not «settled» for many specific, and important, points, even though the basic case for rising risks from rising concentrations of greenhouse gases is robust enough to merit a strong response, according to a host of experts (even if you take the intergovernmental panel's findings with a grain of salt).

While I am still comfortable with my argument that «human inertia» is the prime explanation for a long response time for doing anything about greenhouse gas emissions, I am very wary of efforts by California and the U.K. to stick their necks out on carbon reductions.

Such factors include increased greenhouse gas concentrations associated with fossil fuel burning, sulphate aerosols produced as an industrial by - product, human - induced changes in land surface properties among other things.

In theory, the goal of the Paris talks over a new global climate agreement is to create a more sustainable human relationship with the climate system by curbing emissions of greenhouse gases and boosting poor countries» capacity to withstand climate shocks.

The documents were posted Thursday at Stopgreensuicide.com, a Web site launched by Alec Rawls, a passionate foe of restrictions on greenhouse gases (with a very quirky pedigree) who signed up — like almost anyone could — to be one of 800 reviewers offering more than 30,000 comments on this draft report, which focuses on the basic science examining the extent of the human influence on the climate system.