Sentences with phrase «burning fossil fuels at»

Under the notorious business - as - usual scenario, in which humans go on burning fossil fuels at an ever - increasing rate, and releasing ever more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, then the dunes of North Africa's Sahara will march northwards and southern Spain will become a desert.

And it probably more than pay for itself it you take into account all of the externalities that are not priced into burning fossil fuels at this time.

This rate could speed up if we keep burning fossil fuels at our current pace, some experts say, causing sea levels to rise several meters over the next 50 to 150 years.

In essence you are telling your fellow citizens and mine (Canada; 17.3 tons p.c.) to ignore thousands of your fellow scientists who contribute to the IPCC and that we North Americans might as well keep on burning those fossil fuels at a vastly higher rate than any country in the world because the IPCC isn't 100 % certain that such action / inaction is causing global climate change!

One group warns that, if humans go on burning fossil fuels at an ever increasing rate, heatwave temperatures could reach an intolerable 55 °C in many parts of the globe, including some parts of continental Europe.

LONDON, 29 October, 2015 − A lethal combination of temperature and humidity may make some parts of the planet intolerable to human life before the end of the century − if we go on burning fossil fuels at the present rate.

EU countries have just nine more years of burning fossil fuels at the current rate to avoid a global temperature rise of 2 °C.

This development is absolutely crucial, since burning fossil fuels at the rate we are burning them is rapidly changing the climate in ways that seriously harm our quality of life.

If we keep burning fossil fuels at our current rates, food may become harder and harder to grow in many places.

Hansen and his co-authors describe a world that may quickly start to spin out of control if humans keep burning fossil fuels at close to our current rate.

They are talking about the dangers of anthropogenic global warming, but include the sea level rise from all warming effects, most of which occured long before we were burning fossil fuels at anywhere near current rates.

If the world keeps burning fossil fuels at current rates, things will be worse, faster.

The basic claim of the paper is that by burning fossil fuels at a prodigious pace and pouring heat - trapping gases into the atmosphere, humanity is about to provoke an abrupt climate shift.

If we keep burning fossil fuels at our current rates, food may become harder and harder to grow in many places — as even slight changes in long - established precipitation and temperature patterns can wreak havoc on certain fruits and vegetables — and what does grow could be less and less nutritious.

And if humans go on burning fossil fuels at the present profligate way, the areas suitable for growing coffee could drop somewhere between 73 % and 88 % by 2050.

The nations of the world will come together to set a target and timeframe for reducing emissions from burning fossil fuels at the end of 2009 in Copenhagen, Denmark.

As a long as we keep burning fossil fuels at current rates, the concentrations will keep rising like this,» Ralph Keeling, the scientists in charge of the Mauna Loa monitoring project, told Climate Central earlier this month.

Yet I have done some calculations that I think can answer those questions now: If the world keeps burning fossil fuels at the current rate, it will cross a threshold into environmental ruin by 2036.

Also, while electrolysis uses a renewable feedstock (water), burning fossil fuels at a power plant to run an electrolysis machine undermines the fuel's low - carbon attributes.

And burning fossil fuels at the same increasing rates through 2050 would drive those levels to their highest point in 50 million years, according to an April study in Nature Communications.

For 50 years we manage to keep the planet at its current temperature, sea levels stabilize, endangered species rebuild, and all this while we're still burning fossil fuels at a leisurely pace.

When we clear forests, we're not only knocking out our best ally in capturing the staggering amount of GHGs we humans create (which we do primarily by burning fossil fuels at energy facilities, and of course, in cars, planes, and trains).

In the case of climate change, a clear consensus exists among mainstream researchers that human influences on climate are already detectable, and that potentially far more substantial changes are likely to take place in the future if we continue to burn fossil fuels at current rates.

They report in the journal Climatic Change that, if humans continue to burn fossil fuels at an accelerating rate, and as average global temperatures creep up by the predicted 4 °C above historic levels, then on the hottest days, between 10 % and 30 % of fully - loaded planes may have to remove fuel, cargo or passengers before they can take off: either that, or flights will have to be delayed to the cooler hours.

LONDON, 19 June, 2017 — By 2100, if nations continue to burn fossil fuels at the current rates, three out of four people will be at risk from lethal heatwaves.

Last of all, there is the near certainty that global warming activists will continue to burn fossil fuels at an extremely above average rate.

A quarter century ago, scientists warned that if we kept burning fossil fuel at current rates we'd melt the Arctic.

New calculations by the author indicate that if the world continues to burn fossil fuels at the current rate, global warming will rise to two degrees Celsius by 2036, crossing a threshold that will harm human civilization.

It takes a village to raise a child, but it takes an expensive - to - maintain global infrastructure to burn fossil fuels at the current rate.

Continuing to burn fossil fuels at today's rates «would be an act of extraordinary witting intergenerational injustice,» Hansen and his colleagues concluded.

If humans continue burning fossil fuel at present rates for another century or two, they may reach the point where outgassing from these CO2 reservoirs will exceed the capacity of human control.

(source; http://carbonfootprintofnations.com/) Shouldn't you be trying to convince the average American not to burn fossil fuels at a rate which is 4 times that of the average Chinese and 12 times that of the average Indian, instead of advising them to dismiss IPCC reports?

Should we continue to burn fossil fuels at the current rate, we are likely to see the same temperature increase in the space of a few hundred years that took a few thousand years 55 million years ago.

We are up against the world's largest corporations, who are attempting to extract, transport and burn fossil fuels at an unprecedented rate, all as the climate crisis spins out of control.

Not exact matches

While Peabody was only down about 10 % at the end of May 2014, the stock got crushed as the government proposed to reduce carbon emissions (stemming from fossil fuels like coal), which would burn up even more of Peabody's bottom line.

Poor nations are at present relatively minor contributors to the carbon dioxide generated by burning fossil fuels.

However, at least two of the state's nuclear reactors are in danger of closing within the next few years and would significantly increase air pollution because they would be replaced by fossil - fuel burning power plants in the near future.

Indeed, four conventional power plants burning fossil fuels are due to come online in the Hudson Valley, at least two of which are possibly being lured by the promise of higher profits due to the Zone configuration.

That means the atmosphere in 2100 would hold an extra 4 1/2 years» worth of carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel burning at current rates,...

In an upcoming paper, Max Bothwell, a scientist at Environment Canada, proposed that climate change is one of four factors — along with atmospheric deposition of nitrogen from fossil fuel burning — boosting the blooms.

But Jones is not sure if Manley did as well at capturing slower changes, of a few tenths of a degree over decades, which is important for detecting the onset of warming due to the burning of fossil fuels.

Now a group of researchers led by Steven Kuznicki at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada, and Anthony Ku at General Electric think they can be used to screen out the carbon dioxide produced when processing or burning fossil fuels.

What we see is that if we continue in our current trends in burning fossil fuels, the ocean will become more acidic than it has been at any time in the past 65 million years.

This relates to the whole area of development for people talking about biofuels, which is this idea of trying to develop replacements for the conventional sorts of fossil fuels that we have to at least — if we are going to be burning some sort of hydrocarbons of some kind — to try to get them [so] that they are being derived from a different source, and potentially or ideally, ones that would actually burn without delivering as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere too; that's great if you can get that.

Previously, researchers have produced hydrogen gas in microbial - powered, batterylike fuel cells, but only when they supplemented the energy produced by the bacteria with electrical energy from external sources — such as that obtained from renewable sources or burning fossil fuels, says Bruce Logan, an environmental engineer at Pennsylvania State University, University Park.

Since the Industrial Revolution, fossil fuel burning has released sulfate and nitrate ions — both acid rain precursors — into the atmosphere at unprecedented levels.

A problem is that markets for trading carbon dioxide focus on cuts in emissions at power plants and factories burning fossil fuels, not renewable energies which are viewed as green.

And ozone, which forms a beneficial shield against ultraviolet radiation when high in the stratosphere, is an efficient greenhouse gas when it appears at airliner altitudes — as it increasingly does, since it too is a by - product of fossil fuel burning.

That means the atmosphere in 2100 would hold an extra 4 1/2 years» worth of carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel burning at current rates, the researchers report in the Sept. 23 Science.

Yet if greenhouse - gas emissions from burning fossil fuels are not reduced at all, in a business - as - usual scenario, water management will clearly not suffice to outweigh the negative climate effects.