Sentences with phrase «times more co2»

So in comparison your number is 100 times higher - or roughly equal to 20 times more CO2 in the atmosphere.

However, two recent papers published in Science, including the one we discussed in our post, have pointed out that when you take into account land use changes, the global warming pollution benefit of corn ethanol is negligible or not a benefit at all but a negative (researcher Joseph Fargione's team found that most biofuels «create a «biofuel carbon debt» by releasing 17 to 420 times more CO2 than the annual greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions that these biofuels would provide by displacing fossil fuels.»)

All the while generating about 20 % more waste, and 500 times more CO2 emissions, than the end weight of the shirt.This is a brave initiative by Patagonia to put even more of their cards on the table for all to see.

It should also be pointed out that, as CO2 partitions 50 to 1 into the oceans, we would have to emit 50 times more CO2 that required to simply double atmospheric CO2.

It could also be pointed out that CO2 partitions 100,000 to 1 between the rocks and the air, so we would have to add 100,000 times more CO2 to just double atmospherics CO2... This is wrong, as the ocean comparison is wrong because of time - scales.

Considering that AGW explains this trend in terms of GHG increases, and the 21st century will see at least five times more CO2 added as the 20th century, it seems reasonable to say this trend will only increase.

The equilibrium is such that there 1000 times more CO2 in pure water as carbonic acid (so about 0.3 ppm if it weren't neutralised straight away).

Another Atmospheric Scientist Dissents: Calls fears of CO2 tipping point «alarmist, ludicrous, and totally without foundation» — July 13, 2009 — «Over geologic time there has been 15 to 25 times more CO2 than current concentrations»

I think we ought to contrast this with the statement on British TV by Sir Paul Nurse of the Royal Society that humans contribute seven times more CO2 than natural sources:

And when one considers the ocean already contains 50 times more CO2 than atmosphere — Elsewhere the figure of 4000 times was given.

Under equilibrium Slide 24/30: < blockquote This means that there will be about 50 times more CO2 dissolved in water than contained in the free air above.

And when one considers the ocean already contains 50 times more CO2 than atmosphere or say more than 50 trillion tonnes of CO2, what effect would their be if during a brief period of time [say any where within a week or month or even a year] one could add, say.1 trillion tonnes to this existing 50 trillion tonnes CO2 then what in terms acidifying occurs in such a body?

Even without the above lack of alternatives, the mass balance still holds: as long as the increase in the atmosphere is less than what humans emit, then nature as a whole is a net sink for CO2, doesn't add anything to the total mass of CO2 in the atmosphere, even if it circulates 10, 100 or 1,000 times more CO2 over the seasons.

Oceans contain about 50 times more CO2 than the atmosphere and are important regulators of the atmospheric CO2 concentration.

We have a factor of 2.8 times more CO2 in our resources — coal, oil, gas — than we are allowed to emit.

-LSB-...] Almost all plants grow better and are more drought resistant with two to four times more CO2 than now.»

Mother Nature, including her decaying plants and volcanoes, puts about 20 times more CO2 into the atmosphere daily than all human industries contribute.

Human emit 135 times more CO2 than all volcanic activity.

The least - cost solar option would require 400 times more land area and emit 20 times more CO2 than nuclear power.

I don't know where the «seven times» is based on, volcanoes emit less than 1 % of what humans emit, while oceans emit and absorb around 8 times more CO2 and vegetation 12 times more over the seasons.

As CO2 partitions 50 to 1 into the oceans, we would have to release 50 times more CO2 than it would take to physically double the atmospheric CO2.

Humans are Dumping More than 135 Times more CO2 into Earth's Atmosphere than ALL of the Volcanoes, combined.

Or about 5000 times more CO2 than Mars.

And really, warmer oceans holding less co2, I agree with that, then how are you explaining the the sinks that are currently, by official standards, pulling out 1 and half times more co2 than all that was produced in 1965?

that.000002 the US is responsible for (termites contribute 2.5 times more co2 than man, which would mean 25 times more than the US) is in air which has 1 / 1000th the heat capacity of the ocean, which controls the whole shooting match and is now going into its cooling phases after being in the warming phases the past 20 - 30 years.

No, it is estimated there was about two to three times more CO2 in the atmosphere then.

Humans emit 100 times more CO2 than volcanoes.

Human Agriculture & Industry is producing 120 - 135 TIMES MORE CO2 than ALL - of - EARTH's Volcanoes Combined....

That because a standard family car generates 24 times more CO2 pollution than a bike.

there has been 15 to 25 times more CO2 than current concentrations; the claim that this time we will reach a tipping point is alarmist, ludicrous, and totally without foundation,» declared atmospheric scientist Robert W. Endlich on July 12, 2009.

By Lackner's calculations, one synthetic tree could absorb 1,000 times more CO2 than a living tree.

«If you start off with a 50/50 CO2 / methane mixture, this membrane gives you 164 times more CO2 than methane after permeation through the membrane,» Dr Lik Hong Wee explains.

Yet U.S. coal - fired power plants produce more than 30 times more CO2 than Albertan oil sands facilities — 45 million metric tons of greenhouse gases versus nearly two billion metric tons.

Not exact matches

It lingers in the atmosphere for a shorter period than carbon dioxide, but its radiation - trapping impact is more than 25 times greater than CO2.

As we extract more and more oil from EOR plays, and at the same time are trying to increase quantities stored, we are going to have to move to more expensive capture opportunities and toward pure storage plays, which both increases capture costs and turns EOR revenues into a storage cost (you are not going to make money injecting CO2 into saline aquifers unless you are being paid to do so).

The two main gases, methane and nitrous oxide, are considered to be more harmful than CO2 (methane is 21 times more powerful than CO2 and nitrous oxide is 310 times more powerful than CO2) so the data suggests that this is causing a highly dangerous situation for ourselves and, more importantly, for future generations.

Methane also remains in the atmosphere for 9 to 15 years; nitrous oxide remains in the atmosphere for 114 years, on average, and is 296 times more potent than CO2 — the gases released today will continue to be active in degrading the climate decades from now.

By capturing methane gas from cow manure and using it to generate electrical power, the Straus Dairy Farm prevents a greenhouse gas that is 72 times more detrimental than CO2 within a 20 - year period from getting into the atmosphere, while also creating a renewable energy source.

Clean raw tobacco materials will not only reduce the risk for the consumer, but also ensure more efficient manufacturing of consumer products avoiding production stoppages, minimizing waste generation and at the same time contributing to environmental improvements (e.g. reduced energy consumption and CO2 emission control).

So, presently there are relatively more frequent high CO2 times because of the seagrass, but after 2060 there are relatively fewer high CO2 times with seagrass than there would be with no seagrass.

A new technology might be able to strip the CO2 from power plant emissions, and generate more electricity at the same time

But what if we had a system of artificial «trees» a thousand times more efficient than real ones that could suck CO2 out of the air and keep it out?

Starbons are also more selective in capturing CO2 when mixed with nitrogen, with results showing a capture rate of 20:1 rather than 5:1 — four times more selective than other methods.

Twenty years after such a release, methane is 72 times more potent than carbon dioxide (CO2) as a greenhouse gas (after 100 years it remains 25 times more potent than CO2), so if the methane is released, the planet risks a runaway climate catastrophe.

Of course, our study looks back in time and the future will be a very different place in terms of ice sheets and CO2 but it remains to be seen whether or not Earth's climate becomes more or less stable as we move forward from here.»

On a similar time horizon, soot boosts warming more than 1000 times as much as the same mass of CO2 does.

Better yet, more of it was in the crystalline calcite form, which is more stable — and likely to sequester CO2 over geological time — than amorphous CaCO3.

The extended Sleipner area has more than enough capacity to store all of Norway's CO2 emissions for many years and potentially could also store a portion of the rest of Europe's CO2 emissions well into the future — by which time clean energy technologies may have rendered CCS obsolete.

This doesn't mean that humanity would not have to deal with CO2 emissions — and would not be storing up future trouble by continuing to emit at our present pace — but it would buy time and, perhaps even more importantly, significantly reduce the chances of catastrophic climate change.

They also suggest that warming could exacerbate the release of CO2 from Arctic waters by allowing more vulnerable areas to be exposed to sunlight over time.