Sentences with phrase «co2 by agriculture»

Not exact matches

Conversion of natural vegetation to agriculture is a major source of CO2, not only due to losses of plant biomass but also, increased decomposition of soil organic matter caused by disturbance and energy costs of various agricultural practices such as fertilization and irrigation.

Paul Stoy, an ecologist at MSU, paces in front of whiteboards in a powder blue shirt and jeans as he describes how a landscape already dominated by agriculture could be transformed yet again by a different green revolution: vast plantations of crops, sown to sop up carbon dioxide (CO2) from the sky.

The burning of fossil fuels is the main CO2 contributor to the atmosphere, followed by clearing land for agriculture.

Help reduce agriculture - related greenhouse gas emissions in rice - based farming systems by at least 28.4 megatons carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent / year by 2022 and by a further 28.4 megatons CO2 equivalent / year by 2030, compared to business - as - usual scenarios.

Empirical data for the CO2 «airborne fraction», the ratio of observed atmospheric CO2 increase divided by fossil fuel CO2 emissions, show that almost half of the emissions is being taken up by surface (terrestrial and ocean) carbon reservoirs [187], despite a substantial but poorly measured contribution of anthropogenic land use (deforestation and agriculture) to airborne CO2 [179], [216].

Complete restoration of deforested areas is unrealistic, yet 100 GtC carbon drawdown is conceivable because: (1) the human - enhanced atmospheric CO2 level increases carbon uptake by some vegetation and soils, (2) improved agricultural practices can convert agriculture from a CO2 ource into a CO2 sink [174], (3) biomass - burning power plants with CO2 capture and storage can contribute to CO2 drawdown.

In light of these matters, why would we want to expend the energy and resources to treat a symptom of planetary CO2 poisoning and take all the risks that LG describes when it pretty clear that the best approach is a wildly ambitious conversion to very low emission energy / transportation / agriculture systems followed by a wildly ambitious global program of CO2 sequestration / removal from the oceans and / or atmosphere to push the needle back down under 400 ppm in a decade or two at most?

: Re sunshades, yes, what LG said at 14, plus, the shades do nothing to reduce the ocean acidification... why would we want to expend the energy and resources to treat a symptom of planetary CO2 poisoning and take all the risks that LG describes when it pretty clear that the best approach is a wildly ambitious conversion to very low emission energy / transportation / agriculture systems **** concurrent with, and achieved by the same means, *** a wildly ambitious global program of CO2 sequestration / removal... and... under *** 300 ppm *** in 20 — 100 years, at most?

# 30 mike said: Re sunshades, yes, what LG said at 14, plus, the shades do nothing to reduce the ocean acidification... why would we want to expend the energy and resources to treat a symptom of planetary CO2 poisoning and take all the risks that LG describes when it pretty clear that the best approach is a wildly ambitious conversion to very low emission energy / transportation / agriculture systems **** followed by *** a wildly ambitious global program of CO2 sequestration / removal... and... under *** 400 ppm *** in *** a decade or *** two at most?

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..

The biggest problem is that most agriculture is not limited by sunlight, heat or CO2, but by H2O — water.

The objective of the paper is to contribute to the body of knowledge in the area of climate change and agriculture by examining the effect of carbon dioxide concentration (CO2) on cereal yield using autoregressive distributed lag models (ARDL).

The Mongol invasion may have caused a small reduction in global CO2, though it was overshadowed by agriculture.

Moreover, airborne nitrogen compounds that are produced by agriculture, transportation, and other industrial sectors can fertilize nearby forests, thereby removing CO2 from the atmosphere.

Fossil fuel consumption rates will slowly diminish over the coming decades as fossil fuels are gradually depleted, and the resultant atmospheric and oceanic CO2 is predicted by IPCC modelers to END glaciation cycles and thus, to open much of Canada and Siberia to greatly improved agriculture and forestry.

Chief Hydrologist's Conservation Agriculture with CO2 sequestration by biochar is likely the most cost effective with the most beneficial by - products.

If, as he says, «Adding more (CO2) «should» cause warming, with the magnitude of that warming being the real question...» then the minuscule amount of CO2 / methane created by paleo societies in their forest - burning agriculture 5,000 years ago had some part in creating the anthropocene.

Thirdly, urban agriculture and urban forestry contribute to disaster risk reduction and adaptation to climate change by reducing runoff, keeping flood plains free from construction, reducing urban temperatures, capturing dust and CO2, while growing fresh food close to consumers reduces energy spent in transport, cooling, processing and packaging, whilst productive reuse of urban organic wastes and wastewater (and the nutrients these contain) reduces methane emissions from landfills and energy use in fertilizer production.

Secondly, urban agriculture may also positively impact upon the greening and cleaning of the city by turning derelict open spaces into green zones and maintaining buffer and reserve zones free of housing, with positive impacts on the micro-climate (shade, temperature, sequestration of CO2).

Further, all of the CO2 work was funded by the U.S. Departments of Agriculture and Energy.»

Sequester CO2 in the deep ocean Use more sustainable agriculture and forestry Repair leaky natural gas pipelines and facilities Limit urban sprawl Use animal feeds that reduce CH4 emissions by belching cows Reduce poverty Slow population growth Fig, p. 481

One reason for this result is that higher atmospheric concentrations of CO2 might make agriculture more efficient, and this productivity increase would not have been vitiated as of 2100 by any detrimental impacts of higher temperatures.

51 Fig. 20 - 14, p. 481 Cut fossil fuel use (especially coal) Shift from coal to natural gas Improve energy efficiency Shift to renewable energy resources Transfer energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies to developing countries Reduce deforestation Use more sustainable agriculture and forestry Limit urban sprawl Reduce poverty Slow population growth Remove CO 2 from smoke stack and vehicle emissions Store (sequester) CO2 by planting trees Sequester CO 2 deep underground Sequester CO 2 in soil by using no - till cultivation and taking cropland out of production Sequester CO 2 in the deep ocean Repair leaky natural gas pipelines and facilities Use animal feeds that reduce CH 4 emissions by belching cows Solutions Global Warming PreventionCleanup

Apparently, the CO2 impact is so weak it is unable to stop this unexpected (by the IPCC) cooling momentum that could wreak havoc on agriculture and economies.

Empirical data for the CO2 «airborne fraction», the ratio of observed atmospheric CO2 increase divided by fossil fuel CO2 emissions, show that almost half of the emissions is being taken up by surface (terrestrial and ocean) carbon reservoirs [187], despite a substantial but poorly measured contribution of anthropogenic land use (deforestation and agriculture) to airborne CO2 [179], [216].

Complete restoration of deforested areas is unrealistic, yet 100 GtC carbon drawdown is conceivable because: (1) the human - enhanced atmospheric CO2 level increases carbon uptake by some vegetation and soils, (2) improved agricultural practices can convert agriculture from a CO2 ource into a CO2 sink [174], (3) biomass - burning power plants with CO2 capture and storage can contribute to CO2 drawdown.

The «draw down» may be achieved by using that percentage of carbon from an atmospheric source such as agricultural waste, deliberate agriculture (e.g. azollaculture), or artificial photosynthesis via, for instance, using solar energy to hydrolyze water, and combining the hydrogen with CO2 from the air to produce fuel.

Deep decarbonization would require the banning of the consumption of all meat (agriculture currently is directly or indirectly (due to cutting down forests to grow food to feed to animals which are then eaten and the CH4 emitted by the animals, and so on for 18 % of the CO2 emissions.)

Reduce deforestation Sequester CO2 in the deep ocean Use more sustainable agriculture and forestry Repair leaky natural gas pipelines and facilities Limit urban sprawl Use animal feeds that reduce CH4 emissions by belching cows Reduce poverty Slow population growth Fig, p. 481

But be it friend or foe, a study by scientists at the Agriculture Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture shows that warming temperatures and elevated levels of CO2 resulted not only in increased weed growth rates, size and pollen production, but also a change in the plants» chemical composition.

As nobody here can do these kind of sums, which I learnt in school some 55 years ago, the output from burning gasoline by that formula is 54 % CO2 and 46 % H2O, and as none here is aware, the radiative forcing from atmospheric H2O relative to CO2 is about 2 - 4:1 in favour of H2O (Houghton, TAR and 2004), it is clear that burning fossil fuels is very beneficial to all of us, by generating both CO2 and H2O each of which has enormous benefits for us by increasing yields in agriculture, livestock, forestry, and fisheries.

Imagine the impact on energy consumption and CO2 emissions by agriculture if typical American suburbanites devoted the time and energy that they presently spend on maintaining lawns and various other decorative landscape plantings to organic food gardens instead.

Recommended reading for anyone interested in the potential of organic agriculture and forestry to draw down the already dangerous anthropogenic excess of atmospheric CO2 by sequestering carbon in soil and biomass:

We also need to draw down the already dangerous anthropogenic excess of CO2, which can be done by sequestering carbon in soil and biomass with organic agriculture, reforestation, etc..

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has determined that a one percent increase in CO2 boosts crop yields by eight percent, translating into a 33 - pound - per - acre yield per 1 - ppm rise in CO2.