Sentences with phrase «future human carbon emissions»

Compared with the potential feedbacks from fossil methane or methane hydrates, the permafrost feedback from surface thawing is more certain and will happen sooner, very likely in this century, regardless of the level of future human carbon emissions.

Not exact matches

That is because human activities going back 150 years have emitted long - lasting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, meaning that sharp reductions in future emissions are needed to avoid harmful climatic impacts.

Human activities that act on the crust are likely to multiply in the future, Wilson noted, as projects to tap into geothermal sources of energy and to store carbon dioxide emissions become more widespread.

If the human population continues to grow, more pressure will be put on carbon dioxide emissions — leaving future generations vulnerable to the effects of climate change.

As future climate changes become more severe, people might become interested in ways of offsetting the effects of human - induced climate, which could be cheaper than measures to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

Researchers shed light on the relationship between humans» carbon dioxide emissions and future climate change.

There is one and only one justification for a carbon tax — an attempt to influence the future course of the earth's climate (or, as some people prefer, to mitigate anthropogenic climate change) by trying to force down the emissions of the most abundant human - generated greenhouse gas.

The argument is whether us humans have super-imposed our excessive carbon dioxide emissions upon the existing natural balance of the climate system — thereby altering it's natural chemistry leading to possible dangerous global warming at some point in the near and distant future.

«Depending on emissions rates, carbon dioxide concentrations could double or nearly triple from today's level by the end of the century, greatly amplifying future human impacts on climate.

Both past and future human emissions of carbon dioxide will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium, due to the long time it takes for this gas to disappear from the atmosphere.

It ignores two real physical constraints on human CO2 emissions (plus resulting warming) in the future: — changes in human population growth rates — total carbon contained in remaining fossil fuel reserves

While the above analysis yields good results for by tying past climate change to increases in human CO2 emissions, it should be cautioned that the suggested exponential time relation is not suitable for projecting the future over longer time periods, because of possible changes in human population growth rates and absolute limitations on carbon available in remaining fossil fuels.

Limiting carbon emissions is expensive - that's why there is a legitimate argument about how much human contribution to emissions matters and whether incurring those costs now is the best way to respond to the risks of global warming in the future.

In a sharp change from its cautious approach in the past, the National Academy of Sciences on Wednesday called for taxes on carbon emissions, a cap - and - trade program for such emissions or some other strong action to curb runaway global warming.Such actions, which would increase the cost of using coal and petroleum — at least in the immediate future — are necessary because «climate change is occurring, the Earth is warming... concentrations of carbon dioxide are increasing, and there are very clear fingerprints that link [those effects] to humans,» said Pamela A. Matson of Stanford University, who chaired one of five panels organized by the academy at the request of Congress to look at the science of climate change and how the nation should respond.

Undoubtedly, sea levels will continue to rise into the future, in part, from the earth's temperature increase as a result of human carbon dioxide emissions resulting from our use of fossil fuels.

If forests globally were to become a net source of carbon to the atmosphere in the future — an all - too - plausible scenario under climate change — the EF would approach infinity, since additional forest would augment human carbon emissions rather than offset them.

The Farm Bureau does not share the scientific opinion on climate change, with its official position being that «there is no generally agreed upon scientific assessment of the exact impact or extent of carbon emissions from human activities, their impact on past decades of warming or how they will affect future climate changes.»

In this regard, carbon removal approaches share a common purpose with conventional climate mitigation technologies, which also seek to reduce human influence on the climate system (by reducing future anthropogenic GHG emissions).

The group has come up with an interesting radar graphic, and wants a little feedback.The future scenarios take into account the idea of peak everything - water, oil, carbon emissions... - and what humans are likely to do as a response as we hit our planet's limits.

This is further complicated by some political rejection of science - based future climate projections and unwillingness to consider alternative economic development pathways to lowering the emission of carbon dioxide and other GHGs from the Human — Earth systems.

A considerable body of research projects that various extremes may become more frequent and / or intense in the future as a direct consequence of the human emission of carbon dioxide.

And he asserts again that «various extremes may become more frequent and / or intense in the future as a direct consequence of the human emission of carbon dioxide.»

- A considerable body of research projects that various extremes may become more frequent and / or intense in the future as a direct consequence of the human emission of carbon dioxide.»

However, comparison of the amount of carbon dioxide put into the atmosphere by humans in recent years with many scenarios of future emissions, including the limits required to hold climate change below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), shows that there is not yet any tendency to approach the desired targets.

«We, the undersigned, having assessed the relevant scientific evidence, do not find convincing support for the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, dangerous global warming.»