Sentences with phrase «if humans burn 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.

Not exact matches

«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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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».

By the end of the century, if humans went on burning fossil fuels in the notorious business - as - usual scenario, their model demanded the equivalent of almost five Mt Pinatubo eruptions a year.

One implication is that if humans burn most of the fossil fuels, thus injecting into the atmosphere an amount of CO2 at least comparable to that injected during the PETM, the CO2 would stay in the surface carbon reservoirs (atmosphere, ocean, soil, biosphere) for tens of thousands of years, long enough for the atmosphere, ocean and ice sheets to fully respond to the changed atmospheric composition.

Maybe a case can be made that if Exxon had told us decades ago about the speculative theory of human caused climate change from the burning of fossil fuels, then the hijacking of climate science for a political agenda could have commenced earlier?

The first stage was a test of the past to check the simulation's reliability; the second was to see what would happen if humans went on burning fossil fuels in the now - notorious «business - as - usual» scenario.

LONDON, 29 October, 2015 − A lethal combination of temperature and humidity may make some parts of the planet intolerable to human life before the end of the century − if we go on burning fossil fuels at the present rate.

In fact, if humankind was really as dumb as the fans of DPS would have us believe, we wouldn't be around today to hear their doomsaying, because Homo sapiens would have been wiped out during vastly larger environmental swings (in and out of ice ages, for example) in our past, than those expected as a consequence of the burning of fossil fuels to produce the energy that powers our world — a world in which the human life expectancy, perhaps the best measure of our level of «dumbness» or «smartness» — has more than doubled over the last century and continues to grow ever longer.

One group warns that, if humans go on burning fossil fuels at an ever increasing rate, heatwave temperatures could reach an intolerable 55 °C in many parts of the globe, including some parts of continental Europe.

If humans continue burning fossil fuel at present rates for another century or two, they may reach the point where outgassing from these CO2 reservoirs will exceed the capacity of human control.

Other scientists had already established that if global temperatures rise by 4 °C this century − in the notorious business - as - usual scenario in which humans go on burning fossil fuels and depositing ever more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere − then some parts of the globe could become intolerably hot for at least part of the day, and potentially uninhabitable.

LONDON, 27 April, 2017 — If humans go on burning ever greater volumes of fossil fuel, then dramatic rises in sea levels could turn 13 million US citizens into climate refugees and send them fleeing inland — many of them to Atlanta, Houston and Phoenix.

If you add up all the fluxes, you find that 0.2 Gt of carbon are being absorbed by terrestrial plants and soils, 2 Gt are being absorbed by the ocean, and 5.5 Gt are being emitted by humans burning fossil fuels.