Sentences with phrase «ff emissions»

His point that the case for mitigating against FF emissions had not gone through a due diligence study would have to be by it's nature vastly more detailed than anything yet undertaken.

Returning to my original point that some «are paying disproportionately» for the externalization of FF emissions, the people in the states with the ten highest losses paid 4.6 as much per capita as the average, and 125 times as much as in the least affected ten states.

Logically it would also be somewhat a Double return for the «effort» involved — cutting ff use only cuts it, for it doesn't create a ff emissions sink.

Our gross FF emissions are around 8 PgC / year.

There is, of course, a weak linkage between FF emissions & SO2 emissions rather than no linkage.

(Note, I did write «There is no linkage between FF emissions & SO2 emissions «which is evidently not what the more detailed argument that sentence summated was presenting.

Not exact matches

There is no linkage between FF CO2 emissions & SO2 emissions, a linkage you assume and without which your Grand Theory very rapidly splash - lands and gurgles round the U-bend.

Thus about 43 % of the annual FF + cement emissions of roughly 10Gt (C) increase atmospheric CO2 by about 2ppm, to which should be added an increase due to emissions from Land Use Change.

MA: «There is no linkage between FF CO2 emissions & SO2 emissions, a linkage you assume and without which your Grand Theory very rapidly splash - lands and gurgles round the U-bend.»

MA: Munshi then ventures briefly into the issue of calibration of satellite data and in so doing, badly misrepresents Nerem et al (2018) and adds a little Victor - the - Trollishness by plotting 25 - year SLR trends against annual FF CO2 emissions.

and lastly... this little gem from late 2016, which relates back to queries recently about the accuracy of GHG emissions FF use numbers, and what the future may hold (if funded properly).

If the warming effects of CO2 emission from ff were essentially neutralized after the 1940s, then one would expect that a similar neutralization would have been in effect prior to 1940.

Aksel @ 22, The Airborne Fraction of all our CO2 emissions (FF + cement + land use) that remains in the atmosphere is a little under 50 %, perhaps 45 %.

For the record, I have given up flying (and all ff - powered long - distance travel), most driving and meat eating... and have worked on every level (family, work, municipal, state, national, international — though the last I mostly leave to my bro who, as head of a major international NGO, is better positioned to influence international entities) to push them to move rapidly to low or no emissions and low or no emissions waste, and at great risk to relationships and to my professional career.

That's a wide bow to draw obviously, but it would be equally nice to see some Reviews Papers looking at these interrelated Fluxes and Sequestration potential as a Net gain or Loos being spelled out... and considering these matters into the future based on BAU FF cement & LU emissions.

Taking that figure, just to sequester last year's FF + cement carbon emissions would thus require an uptake of about 4 tC / ha.

The rate of emission from holes popping one at every year as estimated by David above is at least 10000 times smaller than other emissions, e.g. fugitive FF mining and agricultural that are in the order of 100s Mt CH4.

This would mean not only reducing FF etc emissions but simultaneously SEQUESTERING ~ 2GtC per year (NETs soil / vegetation), which might put back 20 % (or more) of the 500 GtC HISTORICAL LULCC Land Use Carbon emissions?

Or emissions of CO2 from wood was far more than from FF in the 1800's.

Making a (less radical) 70 % cut in ff energy emissions by 2050 means being asked to replace 17 GtC of «economic» demand in energy at 2050 with something else over and above the bau energy mix projections.

BAU forecasts put ff energy increasing by another 50 % by 2040 making carbon emissions ~ 16GtC per year, and 20 GtC in 2050.

They are saying reducing your emissions give you the opportunity to help those who are taking the cost of using FF but arent contributing to the problem.