Sentences with phrase «then atmospheric carbon»

Then atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations began to rise, which helped the climate to warm a bit faster and somewhat further.

Not exact matches

Is there a correlation, then, between levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and atmospheric temperatures?

Amazonian grasses, sometimes called macrophytes, convert atmospheric carbon to plant biomass, which is then processed by aquatic microorganisms upon decomposition.

Some convert atmospheric nitrogen into bioavailable forms that are then exchanged for carbon from the plant.

But there was a very important difference between then and now: the rate of fluctuations in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels in the past appeared in many cases to have been at a snail's pace compared to recent increases - and today's levels continue to go up exponentially - faster and faster and faster.

Students compare the carbon sequestration potential for land - use types in their state, compare this to the amount of carbon released by human activities, and then discuss forests» ability to sequester atmospheric carbon.

Growing trees that then release their carbon 100 years from now might reduce the size of the transient atmospheric high level, without changing the long climate tail.

The position is that IF you have a carbon - neutral power source, such as nuke - electric, wind - electric, solar - electric, geothermal, etc, then the claim is that this process will efficiently produce liquid fuel from atmospheric CO2.

The response time of atmospheric pCO2 ought to be faster than the response time of carbon isotopes, but then it is unclear to me what would be keeping the temperature up, if not higher CO2.

If it's from the biosphere, then the biosphere got it from the atmosphere in the first place, so it doesn't represent an alteration to the carbon cycle which would increase atmospheric CO2 concentration longterm.

If you accept that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that human fossil fuel use is now the dominant contributor to atmospheric CO2 changes, then knowing how much global temperatures respond to increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is important for understanding the future climate.

If we can shift the cultural context even a little, then there will be some breathing room for those sensible reformist policies that will at least get the atmospheric carbon numbers moving in the right direction.

If you are silly enough to contemplate a 2 ˚C rise, then just to have a 66 per cent chance of limiting warming at that point, atmospheric carbon needs to be held to 400ppm CO2e and that requires a global reduction in emissions of 80 per cent by 2050 (on 1990 levels) and negative emissions after 2070.

The choice of the Antarctic is silly then with its low levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, far better to park it on Mauna Loa..

Indeed, if atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration were to quadruple then the change to ocean surface layer pH would be within the existing variations (both spatial and temporal) of ocean pH.

I am not discounting the human contribution to atmospheric CO2, but for you to write criticism of others knowledge of the carbon cycle, and then see you write about the increase in atmospheric CO2 - «this is ALL attributable to humans burning fossil fuel.»

Each of these components, C1, C2 and C3, is then associated with some fraction of the emissions into the atmosphere, E, and a particular removal mechanism: where b3 (= 0.1) is a fixed constant representing the Revelle buffer factor, and b1 is a fixed constant such that b1 + b3 = 0.3 [11]; b1 represents the fraction of atmospheric CO2 that would remain in the atmosphere following an injection of carbon in the absence of the equilibrium response and ocean advection; b0 represents an adjustable time constant, the inverse of which is of order 200 years.

«It is not surprising then that global warming can be linked directly to the observed increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide and to human industrial activity in general.»

If, for example, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases two times (from 0.035 % to 0.07 %), which is expected by the year of 2100, then the atmospheric pressure will increase by Δp = 1.48 10 - 4 atm (Sorokhtin, 2001).

When we burn fossil fuels, we withdraw carbon from the long - term banking account, then spew it out our smokestacks, depositing it in the short - term cycle, in the form of atmospheric CO2.

In other words, if atmospheric carbon levels are similar to those seen during the Miocene, then temperatures are also ultimately headed for those ranges.

Second, using measured atmospheric CO2 concentrations short circuits two layers of modeling which themselves are major sources of uncertainty, namely, estimating global emissions and, then, estimating the atmospheric CO2 concentrations (based on complex models of the global carbon cycle).

Obviously when two oxygen atoms are coupled to a carbon atom it now acts as a pseudo-Tachyon; a carbon atom knows when it is going to be oxidized in the future and it knows the future atmospheric temperature equilibrium point, so while not bound to oxygen suck up heat and then store it and then when burnt, wait a few decades, and release the heat they have been storing up while sitting in coal veins or in oil formations.

We then define our assumptions about the potential for drawing down atmospheric CO2 via reforestation and increase of soil carbon, and we define fossil fuel emission reduction scenarios that we employ in our study.

By dividing the total temperature change (as indicated by the best - fit linear trend) by the observed rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide content, and then applying that relationship to a doubling of the carbon dioxide content, Loehle arrives at an estimate of the earth's transient climate sensitivity — transient, in the sense that at the time of CO2 doubling, the earth has yet to reach a state of equilibrium and some warming is still to come.

«If a lot of atmospheric carbon dioxide is absorbed and removed from the atmosphere by algae and then transported to the deep ocean, then the atmosphere should theoretically stop warming and get cooler.»

Even then, the world may have to invest in sci - fi technologies like atmospheric carbon dioxide removal to keep greenhouse gases at safe levels.

I have tried a little test at my terrestrial ecology section (I'm a biologist), and every single student I have asked who were just passingly familiar with the carbon cycle, sources and sinks and basic isotopic facts, has immediately been able to point out the obvious weaknesses (e.g. «if the atmospheric CO2 rise came from oceanic outgassing, then why has oceanic CO2 risen too»?).

This would then lead to large, unpredictable changes in ocean ecosystem structure and productivity, on top of other large unpredictable changes to be expected from ocean acidification, the other great oceanic consequence of high atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations from fossil fuel burning.

By then atmospheric pressure will be 100 times what it is today, because the mass of Earth's carbon, when converted to CO2, is 100 times that of today's atmosphere, 98 % of which today is oxygen and nitrogen.

During the Last Glacial Maximum, δ13Catm and atmospheric CO2 concentration were essentially constant, which suggests that the carbon cycle was in dynamic equilibrium and that the net transfer of carbon to the deep ocean had occurred before then.

If CO2 (and its «back radiation») had any significant effect, then a person would expect that, at the same atmospheric pressure, an almost - all - carbon - dioxide - atmosphere would show a much greater «greenhouse effect», but what the almost - all - carbon - dioxide - atmosphere shows is ONLY an incremental temperature increase based on closer proximity to the Sun.

Then note that even at current levels of CO2, we are back to Miocene conditions, The impact of Miocene atmospheric carbon dioxide fluctuations on climate and the evolution of terrestrial ecosystems Wolfram M. Kürschner, Zlatko Kvaček, and David L. Dilcher http://www.pnas.org/content/105/2/449.long with sea highstands ~ 60 meters above current sea levels.

So, if one is concerned about using forests as atmospheric carbon capture machines they should be allowed to grow to steady state and then left alone.

We then applied these rates to the well - known industrial - era history of atmospheric anthropogenic carbon to determine the evolution of the total amount and distribution of oceanic anthropogenic carbon.