Sentences with phrase «if human carbon»

The USGS model also underestimates the extent of permafrost loss by the end of the century, he said, adding that his research shows two - thirds of the state's permafrost could be lost by 2100 if human carbon emissions aren't cut.

One recent study found that the average global temperature would rise another 3.2 ° by the end of the century even if human carbon emissions dropped to zero tomorrow, a scenario that is, of course, extremely unlikely.

Not exact matches

As a Christian, I absolutely believe God began the human race in the Garden of Eden... as a discerning intelligent human being, I can not deny the facts found in carbon dating studies of ancient fossil remains... if God can creat man, he can also allow for investigation and confirmation of planet plant and animal life, the upheaval of mountains, and history of the sea.

Researchers estimate that if all human - related deforestation of the tropics were to stop, the forests could absorb more carbon than at present, equivalent to one - fifth of global emissions.

«If the natural concentration had been a factor of two or more lower, the climate impacts of fossil fuel carbon dioxide release would have occurred about 50 or more years sooner, making it much more challenging for the developing human society to scientifically understand the phenomenon of humanmade climate change in time to prevent it,» he says.

But if humans, through carbon dioxide emissions, are affecting climate less than we think, would that mean we may have more time to reduce the harmful effects?

«If our interpretation is correct, then reducing the amount of black carbon or soot may help diminish the intensity of floods in the south and droughts in the northern areas of China, in addition to having human health benefits,» notes co-author James Hansen of the Goddard Institute.

«The Lancet report underscores the terrible consequences for human health if we don't start reducing the dangerous carbon pollution fueling climate change — and dramatic benefits for people the world over from taking action now,» echoed Kim Knowlton, senior scientist and deputy director of the Science Center at the Natural Resources Defense Council, in a release.

«If all the coal - burning power plants that are scheduled to be built over the next 25 years are built, the lifetime carbon dioxide emissions from those power plants will equal all the emissions from coal burning in all of human history to date,» says John Holdren, a professor of environmental policy at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government.

Wiedinmyer wondered if this burning waste could be an underappreciated source of air pollutants, from greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide to tiny particles and toxic chemicals that can harm human lungs.

Scientists from Columbia and elsewhere will monitor the project to see if this approach could expand to handle the 28 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide humans emit each year.

«If we want to predict more precisely how human perturbation is going to impact atmospheric CO2, and therefore climate, we have to better understand how forests take up and release carbon.»

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.

«If we don't stop burning fossil fuel and cutting down our tropical forests — all those human activities that maintain our society — we're going to reach incredibly high levels of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere.

«The main worry is that if deforestation increases, in combination with the increase fragmentation, increase in drought probability [caused by climate change] and the use of fires by humans, carbon emissions could escalate to proportions never experienced before.»

«In nature, humans exhale carbon dioxide and plants convert it back to oxygen... We wondered if there were any way to use plant cells and put them next to heart cells to produce oxygen from the carbon dioxide,» Dr. Woo explained.

But what if human beings could mimic photosynthesis and use sunlight, water and carbon dioxide to produce fuels that generate electricity or power our cars and aeroplanes?

If human - caused climate change is to be slowed enough to avert the worst consequences of global warming, carbon dioxide emissions from coal - fired power plants and other pollutants will have to be captured and injected deep into the ground to prevent them from being released into the atmosphere.

How do communities in the nutrient - poor, so - called oligotrophic open ocean react, if the seawater gradually acidifies due to the uptake of human - induced carbon dioxide (CO2)?

If humans continue to convert the gigantic biomass of tropical forests and peat bogs into carbon in the sky, it may not matter if you install solar panels on your home, or stop flyinIf humans continue to convert the gigantic biomass of tropical forests and peat bogs into carbon in the sky, it may not matter if you install solar panels on your home, or stop flyinif you install solar panels on your home, or stop flying.

Whilst the symptoms don't match carbon monoxide poisoning; I will mention that if you have a wood burning stove, ensure that it is serviced annually to ensure you aren't putting your life at risk, a small dog can be like a canary in a coal mine as they are more adversely affected by small amount of carbon monoxide than humans.

Science has helped demonstrate that we have entered the Anthropocene, an age in which humans, through our «great acceleration,» have become a planetary force and left a signature — in fallout, carbon, plastic and more — that could mark the dawn of a geological age of our own making (if not yet our own design).

Last week I posted a «Your Dot» contribution from Raymond T. Pierrehumbert, a University of Chicago climate scientist concerned that policy makers and the public keep in mind the primacy of carbon dioxide emissions if they are serious about limiting the chances of propelling disruptive human - driven global warming.

Or, if their view at least agrees that we humans are supposed to be good stewards of the world, then the matter can be settled quite simply: Each generation of humans should leave the world to the next generation with the same carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere that existed when it «inherited» the world.

Further to 12 and eric's response: I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough: in the second sentence by Stefan that I quoted, «this» can only sensibly refer back to the whole of the first sentence, giving the reading That carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are increasing rapidly in the atmosphere due to human activity is a measured fact not even disputed by staunch «climate skeptics.

If he understood this, he would understand how humans have disrupted the carbon cycle — we are releasing carbon from long - term storage by burning fossil fuels, which is causing an imbalance in the cycle and is leading to a build of carbon in the atmosphere.

In both cases, if you really care about cutting risks of the kind of human - driven warming that could last centuries, if not millennia, you also would do well to support research in technologies or practices that could suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere (See Cao and Caldeira's paper for relevant background).

Human activities are the single most important if not the only mechanism by which carbon and other essential elements are returned to the biosphere.

His video illustrates what carbon dioxide emissions from human activities would look like if you could watch the gas volume accumulate in front of you in real - time.

2) If population reduction can not address the carbon crisis, it still remains important for the eventual hoped - for establishment of a reasonably sustainable human civilization.

Also it is not only re-purposing land currently producing grain but not sequestering carbon, it is also re-purposing land that isn't producing much if any at all, because human abuse has deteriorated it beyond its limits to recover naturally in any reasonable period of time.

The idea of reforestation, combined with the minor potential of Allan Savory's methods, combined with who - knows - what - other carbon sequestration techniques, and finally combined with reduced emissions seems like a possible solution to me, (albeit one with little hope of implementation since it seems humans can not get our s ** t together), but I'm not smart enough to know if it is at all realistic scientifically, or just false hope.

If we accept that humans are at the root of global warming then dealing with the problem at its root would seem to suggest the most efficient way to reduce humanity's carbon footprint would be to reduce humanity.

Some wonder if this could be the start of an extended period of solar indolence that would more than offset the warming effect of human - made carbon dioxide emissions.

[Some wonder if this could be the start of an extended period of solar indolence that would more than offset the warming effect of human - made carbon dioxide emissions]

If our ultimate goal is to reduce carbon emissions and, hence, to save humanity, we must realize the psychological effect that the disturbing truth may have and teach about climate change and energy in a carefully thought - out manner based on the available research about human psychology.

As there is currently no science beyond a failing conjecture which establishes that carbon can overcome natural cycles, or that even if it can the tiny amount humans emit relative to the whole is factually relevant and quite a lot of hard science that says carbon is materially irrelevant to natural cycles.

Because the planet does not have a natural system capable of cleaning the atmosphere of excess carbon dioxide in a human - relevant timescale, it makes the development of solutions that hold the potential of removing and sequestering large volumes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere a key priority if we want to avoid climate change.

If you accept that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that human fossil fuel use is now the dominant contributor to atmospheric CO2 changes, then knowing how much global temperatures respond to increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is important for understanding the future climate.

So if you are worried about the plight of humans you need more carbon based energy.

Climate modeller Ken Caldeira believes that if humans keep emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere at the same rate as today, by 2075 the world's coral reefs will begin to disappear because their rate of natural erosion will surpass their ability to grow fast enough to keep up.

Most environmentalists and sympathetic politicians want you to believe that carbon dioxide (CO2) is a «dirty,» dangerous air pollutant and human emissions of it must be reduced by any means possible if the world is to survive.

The safe level of atmospheric carbon dioxide is no more than 350 parts per million, if we want the diversity of other species on the planet to survive — as well as «amenities» that humans require, such as fresh water supplies, stable coastlines and a normal degree of extreme weather events.

«We wanted to check if humans had an impact on carbon dioxide by increasing it by deforestation, but also by decreasing it,» Pongratz told LiveScience.

The inescapable if unfashionable conclusion is that the human use of fossil fuels has been causing the greening of the planet in three separate ways: first, by displacing firewood as a fuel; second, by warming the climate; and third, by raising carbon dioxide levels, which raise plant growth rates.

IPCC AR5 summarizes the scientific literature and estimates that cumulative carbon dioxide emissions related to human activities need to be limited to 1 trillion tonnes C (1000 PgC) since the beginning of the industrial revolution if we are to have a likely chance of limiting warming to 2 °C.

But even if you take every energy - saving step, if you are a 21st - century human, you will leave a carbon footprint.

If she had bothered to actually, y ’ know, check her facts, she'd have found out that humans emit 100 times as much carbon dioxide a year as volcanoes do.

If you want to know about the Earth's «balance» than it is useful to know that the release of carbon dioxide comes in part from its several hundred active volcanoes, from forest fires, and from the many animals, including humans, who exhale it.

The scammers claim that continued human - caused carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions will result in a wide variety of adverse outcomes if the US does not meet their demands.