It is shown that
if global methane emissions were to increase by factors of 2.5 and 5.2 above current emissions, the indirect contributions to RF would be about 250 % and 400 %, respectively, of the RF that can be attributed to directly emitted methane alone.
Not exact matches
He also models the
global warming that would occur
if concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere were to be doubled (due to increases in carbon dioxide and
methane emissions from dragons and the excessive use of wildfire).
If global levels of hydroxyl decrease, global methane concentrations will increase — even if methane emissions remain constant, the researchers sa
If global levels of hydroxyl decrease,
global methane concentrations will increase — even
if methane emissions remain constant, the researchers sa
if methane emissions remain constant, the researchers say.
Global energy - related
emissions could peak by 2020
if energy efficiency is improved; the construction of inefficient coal plants is banned; investment in renewables is increased to $ 400 billion in 2030 from $ 270 billion in 2014;
methane emissions are cut in oil and gas production and fossil fuel subsidies are phased out by 2030.
There's a fantastic paper by the authors of the Beyond Zero
Emissions Land Use Report explaining how there's an opportunity to reduce land sector emissions (especially methane) to temporarily halt global warming buying us time to get off fossils fuels if we reduced livestock production by say 5
Emissions Land Use Report explaining how there's an opportunity to reduce land sector
emissions (especially methane) to temporarily halt global warming buying us time to get off fossils fuels if we reduced livestock production by say 5
emissions (especially
methane) to temporarily halt
global warming buying us time to get off fossils fuels
if we reduced livestock production by say 50 % even.
AC at 78 wrote: «
If there are bubbles of
methane here and there boosting the local CH4 concentration spectacularly but which on the
global level amount to less than 3 % of the effect of CO2
emissions from fossil fuels, what does it matter really?»
If there are bubbles of
methane here and there boosting the local CH4 concentration spectacularly but which on the
global level amount to less than 3 % of the effect of CO2
emissions from fossil fuels, what does it matter really?
Why the heck would they be concerned about reducing
methane emissions if global warming is primarily a product of natural variation?
Sustainable farming across Europe is only possible
if emissions of
methane — a greenhouse gas that contributes to
global warming — are tackled alongside carbon dioxide -LSB-...]
In other words, even
if claims by EDF and virtually every other environmental group that U.S. oil and gas
methane emissions are underestimated — they are almost certainly not a significant percentage of
global emissions.
If Americans want to consume vast quantities of cheap, factory - farmed cow and chicken and pig flesh, then there simply must be an unending supply of cheap factory - farmed grain to feed the animals, and an unending supply of cheap fossil fuels to power industrial agriculture, and the anthropogenic
global warming associated with the CO2 and
methane emissions from industrial animal agriculture must simply not be real.
There is no doubt that carbon
emissions are still rising and to add a gas that is 20 times more powerful as a
global warming gas into the air in sudden out - gassing events, even
if these are only a few years apart, builds a step rise in Carbon content in the atmosphere that will subsequently become the plateau before the next big
methane out - gassing event, regardless as to where it comes from.
«
If we can reduce
emissions of
methane, we can really help to slow
global warming,» said Ryan McCarthy, a science adviser for the California Air Resources Board, which is drawing up rules to implement the new law.