Sentences with phrase «if human carbon emissions»

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

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.

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 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.

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.

«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.»

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Even if it had in fact been the warmest August since records began, there are numerous potential explanations for such a development that have nothing to do with human emissions of the «gas of life» carbon dioxide or alleged «anthropogenic global warming.»

-- Dot Earth Blog — October 3, 2008 — Expert: 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.

The current total of 300 GtC human emissions adds less than 1 % to the carbon reservoir in the deep oceans, and ultimately that is all what returns if everything is back in equilibrium.

If you don't accept the evidence on human - driven climate change and its likely harmful consequences, there is no need to support «comprehensive» legislation that would put a price on carbon through some framework to drive reductions in emissions.

If the planet is cooling, even temporarily, then human carbon emissions can't be a key factor, and we don't want people thinking that, do we?

4) Evne in the case when your 100 year projections are right, show us data that the catastrophic change could be completely avoided, if humans take action to reduce carbon emissions.

They have told the public, politicians, and the press that «global warming» (alias «climate change») is primarily due to human - caused emissions of carbon dioxide, and that if this continues at current levels that this will result in catastrophic global warming.

But build and buttress as it might, New York is hopeless in the long term if we can't somehow stop human carbon emissions soon.

The message of the latest IPCC report is clear: Climate change is real and caused by humans, and we will see far more dangerous and potentially irreversible impacts if we do not reduce global carbon emissions.

Its revised projection indicates that if we stick with business as usual, in terms of carbon dioxide emissions, average surface temperatures on «Earth by 2100 will hit levels far beyond anything humans have ever experienced.

This is a profound loss not just to those of us who knew and loved Gary, but for all the world, for Gary Braasch was an indomitable, passionate climate change warrior who realized what was at stake if we humans do not reduce our carbon emissions.

Now, if we add human emissions to the 2 degree warmer world, we would get 900/1450 = x / 2000; x = 1241 GT of carbon in the atmosphere, or 578 ppm in the atmosphere from a combination of 2 degree warming plus 1000 GT of human emission.

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.

If anthropogenic carbon emissions are limited by law and / or economic means, yet CO2 and CH4 levels do not respond as expected because Arctic emissions are increasing, this could impact the willingness of countries to engage in limiting human carbon emissions.

Given historical climate and physics, the only way that implicit endorsement means «implicitly endors [ing] that humans are a cause of warming» where «a» is something less than primary (that is, over half) is if there is some as - yet undiscovered sink absorbing human CO2 emissions and, simultaneously, an as - yet undiscovered source of CO2 that is releasing it into the atmosphere - and moreover, the CO2 from this mysterious source just happens to possess a carbon isotope signature that matches fossil fuel CO2 as a total coincidence.

Ditto the challenge of flight: «If aircraft carbon emissions continue to rise they could contribute up to 15 per cent of global warming from human activities within 50 years.»

Since many think that human - produced carbon dioxide is warming the planet and contributing to sea level rise, they wanted to make it clear that if the world doesn't do something to curb emissions, their island nation could soon be underwater.

WASHINGTON (AP)-- If carbon dioxide emissions continue at their current pace, by the end of century parts of the Persian Gulf will sometimes be just too hot for the human body to tolerate, a new study says.

That's Why the Cause of Global Warming is a Fundamental Concern If global warming is only part of a greater climatic fluctuation, perhaps partially influenced by human activity, then there is less need to address human - caused carbon emissions.

Even if CO2 WERE the only thing affecting temperatures, human activities certainly aren't the only source of carbon emissions on this planet.

In any case, sweating is a good thing, just the body regulating temperature, a small or sometimes not - so - small reminder that we humans are too alive and not entirely dissimilar from other animal species, not disconnected from natural cycles, something everyone does so why should we care if we ourselves are doing it or others around us are, something which if we simply accepted perhaps we'd not feel the need to constantly manipulate interior temperatures, expending inordinate and unfair amounts of energy (and carbon emissions) to do so, all so that we don't let other people see us, eee gads, doing what we're meant to do as biological beings.

Meanwhile, carbon dioxide levels continue to rise, and hardly anyone doubts anymore that projects to pull carbon dioxide emissions out of the air will be a necessary transitional measure if the population of humans on Earth hope to continue energy - spurred growth while converting to renewable energy sources.

In other words, if Dr. Goldblatt's figures are correct, the possibility of a runaway greenhouse is extremely unlikely, the chances of a runaway greenhouse due to human carbon emissions are non-existent, and the UVic website's main headline is seriously misleading and unnecessarily alarmist.

As stated earlier, I agree with the point that tropospheric aerosols from fossil fuels are incredibly bad for human health and other environmental impacts (black carbon soot, acid rain, radioactive emissions, mercury poisoning), putting us in a situation of damned if we do, damned if we don't.

But it's just as important for cities to adapt to climate change — even if the human race were to cut emissions entirely, we would still be facing the extreme effects of climate change for decades to come, because of the increased carbon input that has already taken place since the industrial revolution.

Animals and humans will suffer the consequences, even if we take steps to decrease carbon emissions now, there will be disasters as a result of how we've lived up until this point.

That means if plants around the world continue to adjust to rising carbon dioxide concentrations, increasing their biomass on a global scale, they could actually help offset some of our human carbon emissions by removing more carbon dioxide from the air.