Sentences with phrase «if human fossil fuel»

«All this adds up to what scientists expect to be a gradual slowing of ocean CO2 uptake if human fossil fuel use continues to accelerate.»

Not exact matches

If we continue to focus on renewables and human based energy (walking, biking, insulation, passive heating and hand tools), we can gradually replace our reliance on fossil based fuel.

«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.

«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.

If humans didn't make it or eat it before the fossil fuel age, then we shouldn't either!

In the case of climate change, a clear consensus exists among mainstream researchers that human influences on climate are already detectable, and that potentially far more substantial changes are likely to take place in the future if we continue to burn fossil fuels at current rates.

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

As if more evidence was needed to combat air pollution caused from burning fossil fuels, two recently released reports articulate a human toll that may be higher than previously imagined.

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.

Excerpt: Livermore CA (SPX) Nov 01, 2005 If humans continue to use fossil fuels in a business as usual manner for the next several centuries, the polar ice caps will be depleted, ocean sea levels will rise by seven meters and median air temperatures will soar 14.5 degrees warmer than current day.

According to a paper by Gerald Meehl at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, models show that if human burning of fossil fuels is not curtailed there could be 20 heat records for every cold record by 2050, and by 2100 the ratio could be 50 to 1.

We are killing animals at an alarming rate and humans will become extinct in the not too distant future if we do not start today to curb fossil fuels consumption.

I'm still unclear on the timeframe to reach TEQ in this (highly simplified) scenario — even if humans eliminate fossil fuels in 7 years, even if the 1 % per year rate is exceeded, what are they really saying here?

That permafrost won't keep outgassing if humans quit fossil fuels 70 years from now?

I see parallels between some of the statement is your quote and James Hansen's statements that there is a risk the oceans will evaporate and Earth will get an atmosphere like Venus unless humans stop their evil ways and stop burning evil fossil fuels — and, if we don't stop burning fossil fuels within the next few years it'll be too late (he made this statement about a decade ago!).

Professor Curry wrote, «If you accept the premise that human caused climate change is dangerous and that we need to rapidly stop burning fossil fuels, then I don't see a near term alternative to nuclear.»

If you accept the premise that human caused climate change is dangerous and that we need to rapidly stop burning fossil fuels, then I don't see a near term alternative to nuclear.

«If we stopped using fossil fuel today, or by 2020 as Al Gore proposes, at least half the human population would perish and there wouldn't be a tree left on the planet with [in] a year, as people struggled to find enough energy to stay alive.»

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.

Reblogged this on Climate Collections and commented: Executive Summary: If you accept the premise that human caused climate change is dangerous and that we need to rapidly stop burning fossil fuels, then I [JC] don't see a near term alternative to nuclear.

that «Human combustion of fossil fuels is significantly causing that climate change» is also true, then many, perhaps most, people will accept that there is a need to «reduce greenhouse gas emissions and build out clean energy» even if it will «cost consumers money, decrease energy security and destroy jobs».

And if humans go on burning fossil fuels at the present profligate way, the areas suitable for growing coffee could drop somewhere between 73 % and 88 % by 2050.

They report in the journal Climatic Change that, if humans continue to burn fossil fuels at an accelerating rate, and as average global temperatures creep up by the predicted 4 °C above historic levels, then on the hottest days, between 10 % and 30 % of fully - loaded planes may have to remove fuel, cargo or passengers before they can take off: either that, or flights will have to be delayed to the cooler hours.

But it is true that some of the fossil - fuel funded groups that formerly argued that there is no global warming have reacted to criticism by changing their argument to «the climate is always changing,» as if that somehow disproves the scientific consensus that human greenhouse - gas emissions are causing dangerous warming.

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.

And, if we accept the WEC 2010 estimate of the inferred total amount of remaining fossil fuels on our planet, the maximum possible human - caused CO2 concentration that could ever be asymptotically reached is around 1020 ppmv.

If this was a CSI detective show, humans, especially the fossil fuel industry, would have been arrested long ago, thrown in jail, tried, and convicted of damaging our planet's life support system because of all the vast evidence of climate change.

Most of us would not be here if it were not for the use of fossil fuels because all human activity is enabled by energy supply and limited by material science.

If you share a fundamental moral outrage over this absurdity, join us this summer and beyond as we use organizing, NVDA, divestment campaigns, and transformative pilot projects to stop new fossil fuel projects, shut down old ones, and build our future at the human scale, with human values, instead.

If we pay attention to what scientists and frontline communities are telling us, instead of fossil fuel industry deceptions, the message is clear: Humans are causing the rapid onset of climate change, which is already bringing costly impacts across the world.

Vaughan's projection («scuse me, «extrapolation») of 1040 ppmv by 2100 is physically impossible to reach from human combustion of fossil fuels, even if we burned them all 100 % up by 2100.

If we assume (as IPCC does) that human CO2 emissions are the single cause of increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations, the we could asymptotically reach an absolute highest level of atmospheric CO2 of around 1,030 ppmv WHEN ALL FOSSIL FUELS ARE 100 % USED UP.

Attributing allegedly unnatural warming to the use of fossil fuels to obtain energy essential for human flourishing, these voices demand that people surrender their God - given dominium, even if doing so means remaining in or returning to poverty.

If there are not, humans should not agree to give up any uses of fossil fuels, or waste time and resources on efforts to bring this about.

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.

This has always been the only serious risk and what must be avoided if the US and the developed world is to have a prosperous future that will allow humans to have access to the fossil fuel - generated energy needed for continued economic progress and improved human welfare and if plants are to not to lose partial access to one of their basic nutrients (assumming CO2 emissions reductions have any real effects on atmospheric CO2 levels).

On the other hand, if by some chance and what ends up happening is totally independent of human activity, because it turns out after all that CO2 from fossil fuels is magically transparent to infrared and has no effect on ocean pH, unlike regular CO2, say, but coincidentally big pieces of the ice sheets melt and temperature goes up 7 C in the next couple of centuries and weather patterns change and large unprecedented extreme events happen with incerasing frequency, and coincidentally all the reefs and shellfish die and the ocean becomes a rancid puddle, that could be unfortunate.

I never use human land use changes in my calculations, as these are by far not accurate, compared to emissions from fossil fuel use, even if it is certain that land use changes add to the emissions.

Civil society, governments and business communities must accept that if we do not change the way we live on this planet and do something to reduce drastically the carbon footprint and increase dramatically access to renewable energy now through tougher regulations and an overhaul of the fossil fuel industry (stop subsidizing the polluters and begin funding the human solutions to climate change), the planet will continue to change in devastating ways.

If you look at the increase in global mean temperature over the last fifty years, the vast majority of that is associated with human activity and the burning of fossil fuels.

If you want to turn human effort into energy, and you're already using fossil fuels or are connected to the grid, the best way is to install weatherstripping, insulation etc..

The case against CO2 is full of liabilities; if there is any bad consequence due in future to future CO2 it will take at least a century to produce an effect large enough to matter; there is no case that reducing human fossil fuel use will produce a climate benefit sooner than it produces a fuel benefit.

New calculations by the author indicate that if the world continues to burn fossil fuels at the current rate, global warming will rise to two degrees Celsius by 2036, crossing a threshold that will harm human civilization.

If you don't care to believe what the fossil fuel and nuclear industries are doing to our land, air, water, human health, AND how much they're stealing in subsidies from taxpayers like me and (presumably) you every year, then you've lost the ability to think for yourself.

Hansen and his co-authors describe a world that may quickly start to spin out of control if humans keep burning fossil fuels at close to our current rate.

After all, if natural cycles always revert to mean, then shouldn't the climate have always been stable before humans showed up and started burning all those evil fossil fuels?

CO2 can act as both a primary driver, if humans burn fossil fuels to increase CO2 levels, and a secondary driver (part of the positive feedback loop) if CO2 levels increase naturally as a result of other forcings which cause a warming and which, in turn, lead to increased CO2 levels.

LONDON, 2 March, 2016 — Heatwaves that used to arrive once every 20 years or so could become annual events by 2075 across almost two - thirds of the planet's land surface — if humans go on burning ever more fossil fuels and releasing ever more greenhouse gases.

If you're suggesting something about the recent changes is a) unprecedented in earth's history, and / or b) attributable mostly to humans burning fossil fuels, then you've got a ways to go before the (real) science is «in» or «settled».

But if every country moved up the energy ladder — from wood and dung to fossil fuels and from fossil fuels to uranium — all humans could achieve, or even surpass, Western levels of energy consumption while reducing global environmental damage below today's levels.