Sentences with phrase «atmosphere than plants»

She also said that citizens should realize that whether they are cutting down trees or burning fossil fuels, they are putting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than plants can remove.

Not exact matches

The current rate of burning fossil fuels adds about 2 ppm per year to the atmosphere, so that getting from the current level to 1000 ppm would take about 300 years — and 1000 ppm is still less than what most plants would prefer, and much less than either the nasa or the Navy limit for human beings.

Another major benefit of covered anaerobic lagoons with efficient green energy storage is that the methane biogas produced is not only prevented from escaping into the atmosphere (where it is many times more damaging than C02 emissions) but is also harnessed to generate energy — rather than waste water plants being heavy consumers of energy in processing and oxygenation.

Much of that comes from power plants that burn coal or natural gas — emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, even more than was captured.

Jaenicke's 15 - year study found that more than a billion tons of bioaerosols — bits of proteins and cells, animal fur, dandruff, dead plants, and insects — are sloughed off into the atmosphere every year, an amount about 20 times greater than previously estimated.

COPENHAGEN — Revolutionizing the energy industry to achieve a target concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere of no more than 450 parts per million (ppm) would require building 17 nuclear power plants a year between now and 2030; 17,000 wind turbines a year; or two hydropower dams on the scale of Three Gorges Dam in China, according to the International Energy Agency.

Moisture that evaporates from the ocean tends to be lighter than water vapor released into the atmosphere by plants.

From the atmosphere's point of view, growing biomass to burn in a power plant and using the electricity to move a car avoids 10 tons of carbon dioxide emissions per acre, or 108 percent more emission offsets than ethanol.

Plants using the C3 form of photosynthesis normally show a stronger growth response to extra CO2 in the atmosphere than those using the C4 form.

«The world desperately needs higher - efficiency gas turbines because the end result is millions of tons of carbon dioxide that's not going into the atmosphere,» said Citeno, noting that in the last 2 years, more than 50 percent of gas turbines manufactured at GE's Greenville plant were exported to other countries.

This is because large animals disperse large seeded plant species often associated with large trees and high wood density — which are more effective at capturing and storing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than smaller trees.

Heatwaves from Europe to China are likely to be more intense and result in maximum temperatures that are 3 °C to 5 °C warmer than previously estimated by the middle of the century — all because of the way plants on the ground respond to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

In other words, with more nitrogen available, plant life might be able to absorb more CO2 than climate scientists have been estimating, which means the planet won't warm as much, despite mankind's pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.

To stay within the budget, global emissions would have to peak by 2020, and then become negative — with more CO2 being taken out of the atmosphere by plants and the oceans than is put into the air each year — by 2090.

For decades, scientists have recognized that more nitrogen accumulates in soils and plants than can be explained by the atmosphere alone, but they could not pinpoint what was missing.

Soils hold more carbon than all of the earth's plant biomass and atmosphere combined.

Rather than representing specific plants, the artist was more interested in capturing the otherworldly space and atmosphere of the lush greenhouse.

Even if the atmosphere doesn't turn out to be more sensitive to CO2 than feared, my plan A would include a major shift to accelerator - driven thorium electrical power plants worldwide, and replacement of gasoline - powered transportation with electrical or hydrogen or some technology I don't yet know about.

[Response: I can't speak to the economic part of the question, but thermodynamically, it'd be easier to capture the CO2 where it's concentrated, say in the emission from an integrated gasification power plant, rather than fighting entropy by unmixing CO2 from the atmosphere.

I personally think that fighting for red white and blue exports is a lot less important than changing the way we treat the atmosphere and the creatures and plants that breathe it.

It might make sense to take a small portion of the aerosol that would have been dumped into the troposphere by retired dirty coal plants, and inject that directly into the stratosphere where it will restore the lost cooling effect while (hopefully) doing less harm than the old stuff dumped into the lower atmosphere.

Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C / 12C ratio — about 2 % lower than that of the atmosphere.

Such as «[f] ossil fuel produced CO2 is healthier for plants than the current atmosphere.»

The plants don't seem to mind a little extra CO2, but meanwhile, we are focused on «carbon credits» and reducing CO2 while mercury pours into our fish supplies and we release enough methane to make the atmosphere flammable (see, this is how hyperbole starts — but we release a lot of methane and it's more harmful than CO2).

The current rate of burning fossil fuels adds about 2 ppm per year to the atmosphere, so that getting from the current level to 1000 ppm would take about 300 years — and 1000 ppm is still less than what most plants would prefer, and much less than either the nasa or the Navy limit for human beings.»

Through large - scale tree planting efforts, the three — China, India and South Korea — have together removed more than 12 billion metric tons of CO2 from the atmosphere over the past two decades.

The world's existing power plants are on track to pour more than 300 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and current monitoring standards often fail to take these long - term emissions into account, according to new research from scientists at UC Irvine and Princeton University.

Direct air capture is just what it sounds like: sucking CO2 straight from the atmosphere, rather than from a concentrated source like a power plant or steel mill.

Carbon use is important because, with current commercial technologies, power plants and industrial facilities equipped with carbon capture are more expensive to operate than their counterparts that vent CO2 into the atmosphere.

Thus even if more C4 plants are grown, that changes the amounts of 12CO2 which is absorbed vs. 13CO2, but as long as the O2 levels show that the biosphere is a net sink for CO2 (whatever the type), more 12CO2 leaves the atmosphere than 13CO2, compared to the atmospheric isotope ratio.

Plants live on soils over land (sea plants are lucky, plenty of CO2 there), where the average CO2 level is 30 - 40 ppmv higher than in the bulk atmosphere, even larger if you measure at ground Plants live on soils over land (sea plants are lucky, plenty of CO2 there), where the average CO2 level is 30 - 40 ppmv higher than in the bulk atmosphere, even larger if you measure at ground plants are lucky, plenty of CO2 there), where the average CO2 level is 30 - 40 ppmv higher than in the bulk atmosphere, even larger if you measure at ground level.

In other words, with more nitrogen available, plant life might be able to absorb more CO2 than climate scientists have been estimating, which means the planet won't warm as much, despite mankind's pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.

Mother Nature, including her decaying plants and volcanoes, puts about 20 times more CO2 into the atmosphere daily than all human industries contribute.

Emissions from coal - fired power plants and other industrial concerns in China have made it the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases, putting more climate - changing gases into the atmosphere each year than the US and the European Union combined.

The result of putting more carbon into the atmosphere than can be taken out of it is a warmer climate, a melting Arctic, higher sea levels, improvements in the photosynthetic efficiency of many plants, an intensification of the hydrologic cycle of evaporation and precipitation, and new ocean chemistry.

The world's climate is way too complex... with way too many significant global and regional variables (e.g., solar, volcanic and geologic activity, variations in the strength and path of the jet stream and major ocean currents, the seasons created by the tilt of the earth, and the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere, which by the way is many times more effective at holding heat near the surface of the earth than is carbon dioxide, a non-toxic, trace gas that all plant life must have to survive, and that produce the oxygen that WE need to survive) to consider for any so - called climate model to generate a reliable and reproducible predictive model.

Therefore, the increase in oxygen in the atmosphere from an increase in CO2 would be more than offset by the increase in the consumption of oxygen when a plant undergoes cellular respiration which happens 24 hours a day.

Researchers at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory have found to their surprise that despite the increased human emissions of greenhouse gases, between 2002 and 2014, plants were somehow able to absorb more carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere than in previous decades.

Just a few degrees of cooling phase of the ocean waters might reduce the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere significantly more than if we even stopped every power plants and cars in the world.

It is a proven fact that plants, including trees and all our food crops, are capable of growing much faster at higher levels of CO2 than present in the atmosphere today.

This conclusion was based on precise measurements of the atmosphere's O2 / N2 ratio and indicates that the biosphere's response to increasing temperatures is to increase plant growth rates faster than decomposition rates.

Plants and soils combined contain more than 2,000 billion tons of carbon, more that twice as much as the entire global atmosphere.

Prof Salby points out that while fossil fuels are richer in C12 than the atmosphere, so too is plant life on Earth, and there isn't a lot of difference (just 2.6 %) in the ratios of C13 to C12 in plants versus fossil fuels.

At first glance, yes: natural gas releases less CO2 into the atmosphere than coal, so replacing coal - fired electrical plants with gas - fired plants is a win for global warming.

In the United States, since 1990, the management of forests and other land has acted as a net sink of CO2, which means that more CO2 is removed from the atmosphere, and stored in plants and trees, than is emitted.

However, burning trees releases carbon into the atmosphere immediately — more per unit of electricity generated than coal — and any new trees planted won't reach maturity and absorb the same amount of carbon for decades, if ever.

Rather than a problem, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the prime nutrient for plants.

The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is high enough to cause grave risk for the planet, but it is still far more dilute than the CO2 streaming from a power plant smokestack.

Since our power plants account for less than 0.5 % of all the mercury in the air we breathe, eliminating every milligram of it will do nothing about the other 99.5 % in our atmosphere.

This means plants tend to contain an even smaller ratio of carbon - 13 to carbon - 12 than naturally occurs in the atmosphere.