Sentences with phrase «burning of fossil fuels at»

Although global warming is driven by human behaviour — and in particular the prodigal burning of fossil fuels at an ever - accelerating rate to dump ever - greater quantities of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere — it is also influenced by natural climate rhythms.

This energy is mostly derived from the burning of fossil fuels at power plants.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

Global emissions of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels are set to rise again in 2013, reaching a record high of 36 billion tonnes — according to new figures from the Global Carbon Project, co-led by researchers from the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of East Anglia.

Michael Mann, Distinguished Professor and Director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University, who was not a co-author of the paper, commented: «We can not separate the issues of population growth, resource consumption, the burning of fossil fuels, and climate risk.

Now, locked in limestone that was formed in shallow seawater offshore of the supercontinent Pangaea, scientists have found an isotopic signal to support a sharp drop in pH. The catastrophe holds a cautionary lesson: Due to the burning of fossil fuels, today's oceans are acidifying at an even faster rate than they were at the time of the extinctions, although it hasn't yet persisted nearly as long.

There is hope, however, as CO2 from burning fossil fuels and other human activities appears to have leveled off in 2015 at roughly 40 billion metric tons of CO2 liberated into the atmosphere.

At the moment, these carbon markets only trade in credits for terrestrial ecosystems; for example, keeping a certain amount of forest intact in order to offset a ton of carbon dioxide emitted by burning fossil fuels.

«The atmospheric and oceanic CO2 increase is being driven by the burning of fossil fuels,» says Pieter Tans, a senior scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Earth System Research Laboratory, who leads the U.S. government effort to monitor global greenhouse gas levels.

In some ways, energy regulations to curtail fossil fuel burning may be an easier sell in developing countries than in the United States, said Rachel Cleetus, senior economist with the Climate and Energy Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

http://www.whrc.org/carbon/missingc.htm It is also worth noting that zeroing out CO2 emissions requires not only cessation of fossil fuel burning it also requires cessation of changes in land use which I believe account for about 20 % of CO2 emissions (at least that's my reading of the Woods Hole page).

The increase started around 1800, when we started burning fossil fuels (mostly coal to start) in a big way at the start of the Industrial Revolution.

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.

«Bringing down carbon emissions means retiring more fossil fuel - burning facilities than we build,» Steven Davis, an assistant professor of Earth system science at UC Irvine and the study's lead author, said in a statement.

You can, of course, argue that other factors were at work in the early 20th century warming phase, but if you want to argue that the mid-century cooling was largely due to the neutralizing effect of industrial aerosol pollutants, then you can not, as did Rodgers, claim that any part of that earlier warmup was due to the burning of fossil fuels.

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.

Or at the very least the accountants at Exxon Mobil must have put more than a lump of coal in the stocking hanging over Tierney's fossil fuel - burning fireplace.

Perhaps no surplus carbon sink exists at all to absorb the emissions caused by burning of fossil fuels accumulated in the earth over millions of years.

Extrapolating from their forest study, the researchers estimate that over this century the warming induced from global soil loss, at the rate they monitored, will be «equivalent to the past two decades of carbon emissions from fossil fuel burning and is comparable in magnitude to the cumulative carbon losses to the atmosphere due to human - driven land use change during the past two centuries.»

By burning fossil fuels, we are likely to emit the same amount over the next three centuries,» said James Zachos, professor of Earth sciences at the University of California, Santa Cruz.

Of the emitted CO2 from burning of fossil fuels, about 50 % is absorbed by the ocean and terrestrial carbon sinks at presenOf the emitted CO2 from burning of fossil fuels, about 50 % is absorbed by the ocean and terrestrial carbon sinks at presenof fossil fuels, about 50 % is absorbed by the ocean and terrestrial carbon sinks at present.

According to a paper by Gerald Meehl at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, models show that if human burning of fossil fuels is not curtailed there could be 20 heat records for every cold record by 2050, and by 2100 the ratio could be 50 to 1.

Humans have been burning fossil fuels for only about 150 years, yet that has started a cascade of profound changes that at their current pace will still be felt 10,000 years from now.

If we do what humanity has always done in the past, we're likely to burn all the fossil fuels, and then have a hard landing at a time of high population, with an unbearable climate posing existential risks, at just the time when we're facing the crisis fossil fuels running out.

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.

This part of the report reinforces the reality that no policy aimed at reducing emissions of greenhouse gases is meaningful unless it's relevant in the world's population billionaires, China and India, where the lion's share of growth in fossil fuel burning and emissions is coming.

Your estimates of climate sensitivity come from the IPCC, which assumes that aerosols will continue to provide a very strong cooling effect that offsets about half of the warming from CO2, but you are talking about time frames in which we have stopped burning fossil fuels, so is it appropriate to continue to assume the presence of cooling aerosols at these future times?

Carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels in the United States peaked at more than 1.6 billion tons of carbon in 2007.

At the present rate of fossil fuel burn, there won't be any in 50 or 100 years.

-- Co2 released to the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels is cycled through the oceans based on a five year residence time, so that only about a quarter of the co2 in the atmosphere at any one time is from man.

The landmark decision, affirming a challenge brought by the Sierra Club and allies at Earthjustice, WildEarth Guardians, and High Country Conservation Advocates, could have far - reaching implications for protecting our climate from the threat of mining and burning of coal, natural gas, tar sands, and other fossil fuels.

Interestingly, Mr. Gore appeared to put himself at odds with Mr. Obama by including an outright rejection of what Big Coal and both presidential candidates call «clean coal» — burning the fossil fuel but capturing and burying the resulting carbon dioxide.

Consequently with the dramatic decrease in efficiency of fuel burn in the standby fossil fuel generators there is sweet FA practical reduction in CO2 emissions with the introduction of wind and solar power generation systems particularly when the energy costs of the producing and building the so called renewable energy systems are added to the grossly inefficient running of the ready to go to full generation capacity in minutes, fossil fuel powered standby generators which in many cases must be kept running at low or zero power generation to be able to come on line in minutes when the so called renewable energy systems fail to produce power,

The «moral hazard» argument against CDR goes something like this: CDR could be a «Trojan horse» that fossil fuel interests will use to delay rapid decarbonization of the economy, as these fossil interests could use the prospect of cost - effective, proven, scaleable CDR technologies as an excuse for continuing to burn fossil fuels today (on the grounds that at some point in the future we'll have the CDR techniques to remove these present - day emissions).

They looked at the potential long - term consequences of oceans ever richer in dissolved carbon dioxide, as humans burn ever more fossil fuels and emit greenhouse gases that continue to warm the atmosphere.

The CDM Board at its 99th meeting here in Bonn approved a new methodology for calculating the volume of emission reductions achieved through projects that establish bicycle lanes, bicycle parking, and bicycle - sharing programmes, encouraging a shift in passenger transport modes from their usual fossil - fuel - burning traffic in favor of clean and green pedal power such as bicycles, three - wheelers or e-bikes.

Stopping, or at least greatly reducing, the burning of fossil fuels will cause financial pain to some big and profitable Australian industries for the sake of the global environment.

If power generator owners and governments had decreed that the most inefficient and most unreliable, most costly power generation systems that could be conceived to generate power for our modern civilisation were to be the norm then the so called renewable energy systems of wind and solar along with highly inefficient fossil fuel burning idling generators as standby's when the renewables fail to produce power then it is doubtful that a more hopelessly inefficient and unreliable system could be devised for a civilisation that depends so utterly on having dead steady, totally reliable, at call power every second of every day to run that civilisation's entire very sophisticated structures

The difference in the case of climate change from burning fossil fuels is they are putting human civilization itself at stake, as well as most of the rest of life on Earth.

The oceans are more acidic now than they have been for at least 300m years, due to carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels, and a mass extinction of key...