Sentences with phrase «do by burning fossil fuels»

When we increase its atmospheric concentration, as we do by burning fossil fuels, it causes an enhanced greenhouse effect, leading to global warming.

And if he did it by burning fossil fuel instead of subliming CO2 the cost becomes negative!

One of the biggest users of energy is heating (which is currently mostly done by burning fossil fuels on site, as using electricity for resistive heating is very wasteful as involves needlessly paying Carnot).

Not exact matches

The first is climate change, exacerbated by the greenhouse gases we encourage by burning fossil fuels, cutting down forests, and farming the way we do (particularly for meat production).

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).

We have done that in spades by burning fossil fuels, raising atmospheric levels from a pre-industrial 280 parts per million to the current 387 ppm.

And the team gets its rosy results even though it didn't add in the health and environmental costs of the pollution created by burning fossil fuels.

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.

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.

If the world keeps burning fossil fuels and does little else to prevent climate change — the trajectory we are on — weather events now considered extreme, like the one in 1997 which led to floods so severe that hundreds of thousands of people in Africa were displaced, and the one in 2009 that led to the worst droughts and bushfires in Australia's history, will become average by 2050.

The Stanford scientists suggested roofs covered in photovoltaic panels would do a better job, by producing electricity that then obviates the need for more fossil fuel — burning power plants.

Because of the climate record is still short, more work needs to be done to determine how much of the warming results from natural climate swings and how much from the warming effects of carbon dioxide released by the burning of fossil fuels, Dr. Steig said.

98 % of actual climate scientists (a distinction Dr. Willie Soon does not earn) agree that global warming is real and primarily drive by humans burning fossil fuels like coal and oil.

The simulations confirm that aerosol injection does brighten clouds, but the amount of solar radiation reflected may not be enough to balance the global warming caused by burning fossil fuels.

If global warming is only caused by burning of fossil fuels then it may be possible for humans to do something about global warming.

They have very little to do with the long term trend (driven by fossil fuel burning) but are important for understanding the sensitivity of the carbon cycle to changes in climate.

However, Donald Trump has said that if he's elected US president, he'll do what he can do undermine that agreement, for example by trying to undo President Obama's Clean Power Plan, and enacting policies to burn as much fossil fuels as possible.

The damage getting done to this planet by fossil fuel burning is a crime beyond everything ever done by mankind.

And don't you find it at all interesting that this time span lines up quite closely with the modern era of greatly increased burning of fossil fuels by humans, first coal and peat, and later oil and gas?.

Are you assuming that to be identical with «fossil fuel burning by humans had nothing to do with it»?

And it's no mystery why this has been happening: the profligate burning of fossil fuels, the very thing that US Airways was bound and determined to do despite the inconvenience presented by a melting tarmac.

Ming doesn't have to consume energy to produce CO2, he gets it for free when he produces energy by burning fossil fuels.

Mr. Dickson wrote passionately about several areas in climate science that troubled him, including: first, the idea that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that climate change is real, caused by humans, and a threat; second, the idea that government agencies had manipulated temperature records to fit a narrative of warming; and third, that China is developing its coal resources so fast that nothing short of radical population control will save us, if burning fossil fuels really does cause global warming.

The damage being done to 3rd World countries lies in food costs not insignificantly contributed to by green / UN policies of burning of food grain for fuel, by withholding funds (World Bank, EU, etc.) for building of cheap fossil fueled power to these countries, and other ways denying this vulnerable sector the potential to industrialize.

In all three cases it is easy to know what nature does: a net source, a net sink or a huge sink, simply by substracting the calculated emissions of fossil fuel burning from what is measured in the atmosphere.

Considering the harm done by the burning of fossil fuels and the relative ease of replacing a substantial amount of fossil fuel burning with renewable energy, the knowingly dishonest support of fossil fuels and denigration of renewable energy by people in positions of power and / or responsibility is rightly a crime because it is certainly a grave offence against morality.

We don't know whether what you claim are benefits of «cheap» fossil fuels can really be attributed to their low cost or not, as we can't go back and check on every case as its price impacts work their way through the economy, nor can we speculate about foregone benefits, or whether the benefits are due to the artificially reduced price of burning carbon or whether people would enjoy them (or even greater benefits) in a fair market, except by examining by Capitalist analysis.

That's what is meant by «an increase in capacity does not correlate with an increase of fossil fuel burned.»

By the end of this Century, it will probably see at least 6 feet — and that's if we don't pursue business as usual fossil fuel burning and if the world's glaciers mostly behave themselves by not giving us a big, angry melt pulse in response to our insultBy the end of this Century, it will probably see at least 6 feet — and that's if we don't pursue business as usual fossil fuel burning and if the world's glaciers mostly behave themselves by not giving us a big, angry melt pulse in response to our insultby not giving us a big, angry melt pulse in response to our insults.

And do you also agree that there is a completely clear correlation between increases in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and CO2 released by humans burning fossil fuels and land clearning?

The most efficient way to stabilize a growing population was to raise its standard of living above the poverty line, and the cheapest way to do that was to give the population electricity generated by burning fossil fuels.

That guy keeps babbling that the atmosphere of Venus was created by a runaway greenhouse effect and that this could happen to us too if we don't stop burning fossil fuels.

And assuming, as Burke does, that global warming is a horrible event brought on by burning fossil fuels, wouldn't nuclear power be just a tad bit better?

Radiative Transfer Physics does not depend entirely on the simple absorbtivity of CO2, which by the way is effectively permanent in air when added by burning fossil fuels, compared to water which saturates and precipitates out depending on climate conditions, such as warming due the GHE, as a marginal shift in the dynamic equilibrium through feedbacks.

Answer: The concept of reducing fossil fuel burning has been slowed down by well meaning environmentalist movements lobbying for systems that do not work such as wind and solar.

Why don't you run this calc: what is the total addition rate by burning fossil fuels?

In 2016, CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning decreased by 2 percent in the U.S. and Russia and 1 percent in Japan, but increased 5 percent in India, which doesn't yet show signs of decoupling growth from emissions.

Captain Renault ** is shocked, shocked that governors have figured out that climate change in driven by people doing stuff like burning a lot of fossil fuel.

Breathing or wood burning doesn't add extra CO2 to the atmosphere, because what we breath or use as firewood was removed as CO2 from the atmosphere months to years before by photosynthesis... In contrast, fossil fuels were removed from the atmosphere many millions of years ago and now it is one - way addition...

China and India «have, of course, every right to raise their people out of poverty the same way we did, by burning fossil fuels.»

This was a political protocol based on the claim that wealthy industrialized (developed) nations, led by the US, did so by burning fossil fuels.

All one would have to do to counter his case would be to put together a report «estimating» the number of lives saved each year by the burning of fossil fuels — through the provision of emergency services, heating, nutrition etc etc..

God help us if they achieve this by burning the same amount of fossil fuels per head as the 10 % currently do.

What we do know (consensus) is 6.2 Gigatons of carbon are introduced into the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels (and production of cement) annually.

They certainly don't want the demand for their products — and consequently their profits — to be reduced by a large - scale, rapid move away from burning fossil fuels and towards climate - friendly renewables like wind and solar generated electricity.

As nobody here can do these kind of sums, which I learnt in school some 55 years ago, the output from burning gasoline by that formula is 54 % CO2 and 46 % H2O, and as none here is aware, the radiative forcing from atmospheric H2O relative to CO2 is about 2 - 4:1 in favour of H2O (Houghton, TAR and 2004), it is clear that burning fossil fuels is very beneficial to all of us, by generating both CO2 and H2O each of which has enormous benefits for us by increasing yields in agriculture, livestock, forestry, and fisheries.

The problems posed by carbon dioxide do not reflect these natural processes, but rather human activities, of which the most notable are fossil fuel burning and deforestation.

This is because until the fossil fuel industry allows one of our govts to do the necessary renewable industry scientific technology review and in - depth research, we won't know for sure whether renewables can deliver all the electricity that our growing population will need — by the time we are forced to stop burning coal.

GM's awesome ability to innovate has resulted in a «hybrid» that gets 16x more drive time from the burning of traditional fossil fuels than it does by running on its own charged batteries.

Knowing all we do about the damage wrought by burning fossil fuels — both to our immediate health and to the long - term viability of our habitat — it would seem an act of obscene, destructive decadence.