Sentences with phrase «co2 than other sources»

And the report predicts a bigger increase in the years ahead due to an unprecedented surge of new U.S. coal - plant proposals that would emit substantially more CO2 than other sources generating the same amount of power.

Just the act of mining it out of the ground causes a fair amount of destruction (and costs the lives of many miners, especially in poorer countries), and burning it produces more CO2 than any other source of energy, as well as mercury that makes its way up the food chain and smog - forming emissions of all kinds... But that's not all!

Not exact matches

And attaching the Calera process to the nation's more than 600 coal - fired power plants or even steel mills and other industrial sources is even more attractive as burning coal results in flue gas with as much as 150,000 parts per million of CO2.

A host of new techniques and technologies will be required to reduce emissions from these sources that includes reusing heat and power generated in manufacturing processes; recycling materials or substituting them; controlling greenhouse gases other than carbon dioxide (CO2); and, ultimately, capturing and burying the CO2 produced.

The oil sands are still a tiny part of the world's carbon problem — they account for less than a tenth of one percent of global CO2 emissions — but to many environmentalists they are the thin end of the wedge, the first step along a path that could lead to other, even dirtier sources of oil: producing it from oil shale or coal.

Nuclear power produces less greenhouse gas [CO2] than any other source, including coal, natural gas, hydro, solar and wind.

This is your hardest question to answer, as the question seems to presuppose their are other sources of heat that are warming up the earth other than global warming due to CO2, methane, nitrous oxide (from agriculture and fertilisers) and CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons, from refrigerants etc) accumulating in the atmosphere from mankind's various activities.

Hank (356), I haven't yet read the paper but a couple of thoughts from your excerpt don't seem intuitively obvious: 1) why would CO2 coming from burning fossil fuel be more forcing than CO2 from any other source.

AB: The planet absorbs CO2 based on concentration, not emissions (other than near point sources).

This shift away from CO2 - centric emissions debates is also evident in a group blog post by analysts at the Center for American Progress, who propose a «multiple multilateralism» approach on climate that, among other things, seeks quick steps on sources of warming other than carbon dioxide — particularly sooty Arctic pollution and gases already considered under the existing ozone - protection treaty.

Now, however, the extra CO2 does more than radiate away heat due to its own absorptive properties, but also can radiate away heat from the other source.

This is because over the past three years, hundreds of new scientific field accounts of global warming's impacts, as well as improved peer - reviewed analyses of global warming itself in both the deep past and the very near future, have depicted earth's atmosphere as far more «sensitive» to the invisible CO2, methane and other human - sourced greenhouse gases than had been hoped.

Regarding all the other sources of CO2, it is very true that anthropogenic emission are very much smaller than natural emissions, but natural emissions are well balanced by natural sinks.

The physical evidence for man - made global warming has never been demonstrated - evidence that many of us trained in the sciences have been waiting.When some scientists suggest that other forces other than man - made CO2 may be involved with the climate, like the Sun, the clouds, the oceans, natural sources of CO2, etc., they are met with scorn and derision.

David Rose, politely, courteously, agreeably shared a cup of coffee with his neighbor, nodding and consenting about how something had to be done about CO2 levels, and then quoted his coffee companion out of context and reversing the sense of his source's words in a way we know he has twice (or more) practiced on our host, and more than once on others in the past too.

Aircraft not only emit 12 percent of CO2 emissions from U.S. transportation sources — they also emit nitrogen oxides other than nitrous oxide, causing warming when emitted at high elevation.

Reservoir CO2 and N2O fluxes, however, are lower than other anthropogenic or natural sources as reported by the IPCC (Ciais et al. 2013).

First, most CO2 originates primarily from sources other than humans.

Climate skeptic scientists have long questioned whether the effects of relatively minor (compared to other CO2 sources and sinks) human - caused emissions of CO2 have more than a minor effect on global temperatures and some have even questioned whether the UN and USEPA have even gotten the causation backwards (i.e., because on balance global temperatures affect atmospheric CO2 levels).

This does not match the increase in CO2 concentration indicating that a source other than humans is the predominant source ffor the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 content which has been increasing at a near perfect linear rate of 2ppmv / year for the past decade.

I can think of exceptions like melting permafrost or forest fires or deforestation that may be net carbon into the atmosphere, but otherwise where is the source other than the CO2 in the atmosphere?

It's hard to imagine anything other than climate itself which could cause the widespread rapid liberation of CO2 from any of its sources.

E.g., research assumes greenhouse gas emissions cause warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause»... carbon sequestration in soil is important for mitigating global climate change» (4a) No position Does not address or mention the cause of global warming (4b) Uncertain Expresses position that human's role on recent global warming is uncertain / undefined «While the extent of human - induced global warming is inconclusive...» (5) Implicit rejection Implies humans have had a minimal impact on global warming without saying so explicitly E.g., proposing a natural mechanism is the main cause of global warming»... anywhere from a major portion to all of the warming of the 20th century could plausibly result from natural causes according to these results» (6) Explicit rejection without quantification Explicitly minimizes or rejects that humans are causing global warming»... the global temperature record provides little support for the catastrophic view of the greenhouse effect» (7) Explicit rejection with quantification Explicitly states that humans are causing less than half of global warming «The human contribution to the CO2 content in the atmosphere and the increase in temperature is negligible in comparison with other sources of carbon dioxide emission»»

We have a massive source of CO2 to the atmosphere, other than the oceans.

RealClimate is wonderful, and an excellent source of reliable information.As I've said before, methane is an extremely dangerous component to global warming.Comment # 20 is correct.There is a sharp melting point to frozen methane.A huge increase in the release of methane could happen within the next 50 years.At what point in the Earth's temperature rise and the rise of co2 would a huge methane melt occur?No one has answered that definitive issue.If I ask you all at what point would huge amounts of extra methane start melting, i.e at what temperature rise of the ocean near the Artic methane ice deposits would the methane melt, or at what point in the rise of co2 concentrations in the atmosphere would the methane melt, I believe that no one could currently tell me the actual answer as to where the sharp melting point exists.Of course, once that tipping point has been reached, and billions of tons of methane outgass from what had been locked stores of methane, locked away for an eternity, it is exactly the same as the burning of stored fossil fuels which have been stored for an eternity as well.And even though methane does not have as long a life as co2, while it is around in the air it can cause other tipping points, i.e. permafrost melting, to arrive much sooner.I will reiterate what I've said before on this and other sites.Methane is a hugely underreported, underestimated risk.How about RealClimate attempts to model exactly what would happen to other tipping points, such as the melting permafrost, if indeed a huge increase in the melting of the methal hydrate ice WERE to occur within the next 50 years.My amateur guess is that the huge, albeit temporary, increase in methane over even three or four decades might push other relevent tipping points to arrive much, much, sooner than they normally would, thereby vastly incresing negative feedback mechanisms.We KNOW that quick, huge, changes occured in the Earth's climate in the past.See other relevent posts in the past from Realclimate.Climate often does not change slowly, but undergoes huge, quick, changes periodically, due to negative feedbacks accumulating, and tipping the climate to a quick change.Why should the danger from huge potential methane releases be vievwed with any less trepidation?

# 256 Ray: you do realize that anthropogenic (e.g. fossil fuel) CO2 has a different isotopic signature than CO2 from other sources

With the stroke of a pen the technocrats quietly absolved government of all responsibility to reduce emissions from some of the most obvious and most tractable sources of pollution in the land: the fossil - fuel devouring power stations and factories whose smokestacks belch millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year — not to mention huge amounts of other pollutants which damage our health more directly than CO2.

And then when you consider that (1) humans are a tiny percentage of the total animal biomass on Earth — probably well under 1 % — and that most animals emit more CO2 on a per - pound - of - body - weight than humans do (especially small mammals and birds, which can emit 6 times or more CO2 per pound of body weight than humans)-- you're now looking at SEVERAL HUNDRED BILLION TONS OF CO2 from animal reespiration alone — on top of all the other natural sources of CO2.