Sentences with phrase «not burn all of the fossil fuels»

«We live in an era during which it has become clear that we can not burn all of the fossil fuels without causing dangerous climate change,» the letter, seen by Reuters, said.

We can not burn all of the fossil fuels (oil, gas, coal and unconventional fossil fuels such as tar shale and tar sands) and release the CO2 into the air without creating a different planet.

Not exact matches

The nice thing about Tiny + is that it doesn't require the burning of any fossil fuels, even in the cold, snowy winters and hot, humid summers of the Northeast.

On the blackboard, fusing hydrogen atoms produces enormous amounts of heat which can be captured and developed into an energy source, energy that is safe, cheap, does not burn fossil fuels or consume non-renewable resources.

Why does the carbon dioxide increase as a result of the burning of fossil fuels, yet the oxygen which is used up in this burning is not significantly depleted?

When we clear forests, we're not only knocking out our best ally in capturing the staggering amount of GHGs we humans create (which we do primarily by burning fossil fuels at energy facilities, and of course, in cars, planes, and trains).

States like New York will have to take the lead in developing new sources of energy that do not rely on the burning of fossil fuels and are safe.

But Jones is not sure if Manley did as well at capturing slower changes, of a few tenths of a degree over decades, which is important for detecting the onset of warming due to the burning of fossil fuels.

The power plant wouldn't burn fossil fuels and would actually reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere during the manufacturing process.

When it's not horrific mining accidents like the one in Soma, Turkey, on May 13 that killed more than 300 miners, it's the 13,000 Americans who die early each year because of air pollution from burning the dirtiest fossil fuel.

And the team gets its rosy results even though it didn't add in the health and environmental costs of the pollution created by burning fossil fuels.

In large part, that may be because California hopes its efforts will quickly be followed by other states so that it is not the only state raising the cost of burning fossil fuels.

«The legacy of our fossil fuel burning today is a hangover that could last for tens of thousands of years, if not hundreds of thousands of years to come.»

«We can't burn all these fossil fuels,» Hansen told a group of reporters on December 3, noting that as long as fossil fuels are the cheapest energy source they will continue to be burned.

Emerging economies such as China and India have not joined the Coalition, arguing that its membership of mostly developed nations including Japan, Canada and Australia should focus more on curbing carbon dioxide, released from burning fossil fuels.

Ozone doesn't just live high in Earth's atmosphere; near the ground, it contributes to smog, and ground - level ozone has gradually increased in most places because of industrial pollution from vehicles and fossil - fuel burning.

Michael Mann, Distinguished Professor and Director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University, who was not a co-author of the paper, commented: «We can not separate the issues of population growth, resource consumption, the burning of fossil fuels, and climate risk.

Now, locked in limestone that was formed in shallow seawater offshore of the supercontinent Pangaea, scientists have found an isotopic signal to support a sharp drop in pH. The catastrophe holds a cautionary lesson: Due to the burning of fossil fuels, today's oceans are acidifying at an even faster rate than they were at the time of the extinctions, although it hasn't yet persisted nearly as long.

They can not tell us how much money will be invested in green energy R&D, whether fertility rates will go up or down, whether we will dig up all the remaining fossil fuels and burn them, or the outcomes of numerous other decisions that affect the atmosphere — though they can tell us what will probably happen if we do or don't take them (see «Earth, 2100 AD: Four futures of environment and society «-RRB-.

And, if it were found in large enough quantities, some experts speculate that it could be used as a clean - burning substitute for fossil fuels today because it gives off high amounts of energy when burned but emits only water, not carbon.

Leaving politics aside, for the people around the world who inhabit as much as 71 % of the world's coastlines and are surrounded by oceans, this is not just a statement on a piece of paper, but a commitment of world leaders to take the wellbeing of our further generations to heart, to tackle the burning of fossil fuels and global warming collectively.

«Although these results are «good news» in the sense that the underlying physiology of plants is not going to make the warming of the planet radically worse, the problem we have created in the first place with our greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel burning still exists,» he says.

http://www.whrc.org/carbon/missingc.htm It is also worth noting that zeroing out CO2 emissions requires not only cessation of fossil fuel burning it also requires cessation of changes in land use which I believe account for about 20 % of CO2 emissions (at least that's my reading of the Woods Hole page).

«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 truth though is that ultimately the amount of fossil fuel being burnt is is not getting any smaller.

These models show very clearly that the warming being measured around the world is almost certainly due to the burning of fossil fuels, and could not have happened naturally.

98 % of actual climate scientists (a distinction Dr. Willie Soon does not earn) agree that global warming is real and primarily drive by humans burning fossil fuels like coal and oil.

The simulations confirm that aerosol injection does brighten clouds, but the amount of solar radiation reflected may not be enough to balance the global warming caused by burning fossil fuels.

But, why should someone who's trying NOT TO KILL TREES and NOT TO BURN TONS OF FOSSIL FUELS pay so much?

This alternative is wind renewable energy that doesn't involve the burning of fossil fuels or green house emissions which can be damaging to our air.

You can, of course, argue that other factors were at work in the early 20th century warming phase, but if you want to argue that the mid-century cooling was largely due to the neutralizing effect of industrial aerosol pollutants, then you can not, as did Rodgers, claim that any part of that earlier warmup was due to the burning of fossil fuels.

The rise in CO2 emissions due to the burning of fossil fuels from 1880 through the 1940's was not sufficient to have played a major role in the considerable global temperature rise that took place during that period — so if we want to presume that sea level rise is prompted by global temperature rise (along with concomitant melting of glaciers, etc.) then we can't really attribute very much of the rise in sea levels during that period to CO2.

The level «pollution produced by the burning of fossil fuels» is not determined by the amount of FF you burn but by what sort of FF you burn and how you burn it.

That's all fine, but this also means that the climate talks, which head to Durban, South Africa, next year, are not the place to watch for the breakthroughs — social, financial or technological — that will be required if the world is serious about providing some 9 billion people mid-century with the suite of services that come with abundant energy (mobility, communication, illumination, desalinated water and more) while also greatly cutting emissions from burning fossil fuels, which still dominate the global energy mix.

I love Sailesh Rao's comment above, «Frankly, [our strange fetish for burning fossil fuels] doesn't reflect well on the intelligence of the human species, which probably accounts for why no intelligent life has contacted us yet.»

The problem as I see it is that affluence requires energy and there ain't enough energy in the world to make everyone affluent (not to mention the multiple problems you and I previously touched on with burning copious quantities of fossil fuels).

Now once this ratio (whatever it might be) has been established, I see no reason why more or less the same ratio can not be applied to all cases of fossil fuel burning prior to that period, especially since there were no controls over the emission of such aerosols during either period.

311 MARodger: «The level «pollution produced by the burning of fossil fuels» is not determined by the amount of FF you burn but by what sort of FF you burn and how you burn it.»

[And just to make the point one more time: The greater fraction of the CO2 in the atmosphere today is from fossil fuel burning (by rich countries), not deforestation - eric]

Regarding the issue of liability for the effects of global warming, I would like to point out that we're (USA & developed nations population mostly) the ones who burned the fossil fuels to CO2, not Peabody Coal or Exxon / Mobil.

However, if one considers the enormous increase of reactive nitrogen in our biosphere, due to the use of synthesized fertilizer and the burning of fossil fuels, its impact is not part of the analysis, even tough this increase shows up in the eutrophication (nutrient enrichment) of open waters all over the world, resulting in excess algae, in some areas causing large algae blooms (as where they are going to hold the sailing regattas during the Olympics), red tides and dead zone, as the 8000 square mile dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico.

In regards to: «Regarding the issue of liability for the effects of global warming, I would like to point out that we're (USA & developed nations population mostly) the ones who burned the fossil fuels to CO2, not Peabody Coal or Exxon / Mobil.»

Brian Dodge (359) Says: -LCB- Regarding the issue of liability for the effects of global warming, I would like to point out that we're (USA & developed nations population mostly) the ones who burned the fossil fuels to CO2, not Peabody Coal or Exxon / Mobil.

Fossil fuels are made of hydrocarbons; when they don't burn completely, they are released into the air.

Hank (356), I haven't yet read the paper but a couple of thoughts from your excerpt don't seem intuitively obvious: 1) why would CO2 coming from burning fossil fuel be more forcing than CO2 from any other source.

As if the title weren't misleading enough, the article goes on to say that «Many scientists believe the burning of fossil fuels is causing an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, triggering... the greenhouse effect.»

Current observations and estimates point towards a steady thousand - year rise in temperatures resulting in a warm climate not seen in millions of years — and that is if we stop burning fossil fuels in the near future.

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.

Those pushing for a rising price (via a tax or cap) on emissions make the economic case that as long as the environmental costs of burning fossil fuels (or cutting forests) aren't reflected in the accounting calculations driving those activities, «burn baby burn» will remain business as usual.

Yes, we certainly do need to immediately halt this ridiculous policy of burning fossil fuels and emitting GHGs into the atmosphere until we know for certain that they don't cause GW.