Sentences with phrase «gtc yr»

The yellow crosses and red diamonds indicate pathways in which a «hard» floor is set at 1.5 or 3 GtC yr − 1; in these pathways, emissions are unable to fall below the floor and so remain at these values indefinitely.

Cumulative emissions to 2000 are approximately 0.5 TtC, and a 1.5 GtC yr − 1 emissions floor between 2000 and 2200 has a cumulative total of 0.3 TtC, which leaves only 0.2 TtC remaining if the pathways are to have a cumulative total of 1 TtC.

This effect also holds for 2050 emissions above 5 GtC yr − 1.

Similarly, points to the left of 11.5 GtC yr − 1 generally peak before 2020, and therefore their emission peaks are largely controlled by the rate of emissions today, and not the emissions in 2020.

These two floors take the forms and where A and B are constants with units of gigatonnes of carbon per year (GtC yr − 1) and represent the size of the emissions floor in the year 2050 (t = t2050), and τ is a time constant set to 200 years.

We see that they have 2020 emissions of roughly 12 GtC yr − 1.

The blue crosses pass through 1.5 GtC yr − 1 in the year 2050, while the green diamonds pass through 3 GtC yr − 1 in that year.

Panels (c, f, i) have a 1.5 GtC yr − 1 hard emissions floor.

Figure 5f also shows that a peak emission rate of 11.5 GtC yr − 1 produces a peak rate of warming of 0.2 °C per decade, suggesting that the emission pathways in figure 5c with 2020 emissions of 11.5 GtC are peaking around the year 2020.

In a footnote they note the conversion factor of «2.12 GtC yr - 1 = 1 ppm» which works out to about 4 GtC a year given current buildup rates of around 2 ppmV.

Global mean carbon dioxide emissions in 2008 were 8.8 GtC yr − 1.

Not exact matches

So if, hypothetically, human activities had instead cut CO2 emissions and increased CO2 SOC / Vegetation by a combined amount of 2.2 GtC / year evenly across every month of 2017 then the Annual Mean Growth Rate for 2017 would have been about -0.27 PPM / Yr.

0.185 (fraction of carbon by mass) * 80 kg (average mass of a human) * 3 billion (additional humans) * 10 - 3 (conversion to GtC) / 40 years = 0.001 GtC / yr

I am confused The diagrams show 0.9, 0.8, 0.8 GtC / yr All plus But the wording says 0.9 reduction in the Amazon.

Note, at the observed emission rate of 17 Tg / yr, and using the IPCC GWP of 34 for methane, we're already at 50 GtC over 90 years.

which, compared to current fossil fuel and deforestation emissions of ~ 10 GtC / yr is 4 orders of magnitude too small to be relevant.

To stop CO2 ppm rising and holding them at under 408 ppm for 2018 would require a reduction in Net carbon emissions of at least 2 GtC / yr on current use based on multiple lines of refs in published papers from Hansen down to the latest PhD student of climate science.

Emissions due to these fires showed up in the observations as increases in both CO2 and CO, and were estimated at about 0.8 GtC / yr.

Impacts on GPP were not significant, but respiration and decomposition were enhanced by about 0.8 GtC / yr.

So I don't think it's fair to assume that the 2 GtC / yr will not change.

I know that figure 4 in climate change 1994 showed that there was actually a net upward movement of CO2 (100 GtC / yr up and 91.6 down) from water movement.

It was only the net 10 GtC / yr downward from marine biota which produced a net downward flow of carbon.

It also reports an expected output of 3.0 GtC / yr due to melting, which is almost twice that of the NSIDC study (2011?).

With a rising CO2 concentration, net transfer to the ocean is about 2 GtC / yr out of the roughly 90 GtC / yr that is exchanged.

Overall, net biospheric uptake is about 1.3 GtC / yr [billion tons of carbon a year], which is a small fraction of the overall annual exchange of about 60 GtC / yr and only a modest fraction of fossil fuel emissions of over 8 GtC / yr.

Marine biological activity then transfers a bit more C to the deep ocean than cold, upwelling waters bring back up, such that the net sink to the deep ocean is about 1.6 GtC / yr, and much slower permanent removal in sediments.

From the oxygen and d13C balances, one may deduce that the biosphere absorbs about 1.4 GtC / yr and the oceans about 2 GtC / yr.

If you add to S the 270 GtC / yr for leaf water from the TAR, then T = 1.58 years.

Even though human CO2 emissions rose from 6 GtC / yr to 10 GtC / yr during that span, the GHE radiative forcing attributed to CO2 for 1992 - 2014 was about 0 W m - 2.

And about 100 GtC / yr is reduced by photosynthesis, and subsequently oxidised by respiration and combustion, a process that again has been balanced for millennia.

There it outgasses around 50 GtC / yr while reducing the CO2 solubility to about one third its old value.

The current emissions are around 8 GtC / yr, thus of the same order.

What rests in the atmosphere is about 4 GtC / yr.

Waste - derived biochar application will be phased in linearly over the period 2010 - 2020, by which time it will reach a maximum uptake rate of 0.16 GtC / yr (77).

Human CO2 emissions at about 6 GtC / yr enter the atmosphere to mix with natural emissions of about 90 GtC / yr from the ocean, 120 GtC / yr from land, and possibly another anomalous 270 GtC / yr from leaf water.

CO2 emissions rose from 1 GtC / yr in the 1940s to 8 GtC / yr by 2000... and yet NH temperatures were higher in the 1940s than in 2000... or at least there was no net difference.

Can it be said that CO2 is in equilibrium while we're pumping it into the atmosphere at 10 GtC / yr?

In the time it takes to bring a 1 GtC / yr system online, nature will have ramped up her bit an additional GtC / yr or more.

It should be obvious that these short term CO2 fluctuations are entirely driven by ocean temperature variations, and are therefore fluctuations in nature's 200 GtC / yr emissions.

The total outflow only increases from an estimated 150 GtC / yr to 154 GtC / yr, if we assume the inflows as constant.

I do see the problem: the 100 GtC / yr (actually 90 GtC / yr is only for the oceans, some 60 or 120 GtC is for the biosphere), is the exchange rate, not the decay rate.

Since the sources increase the atmospheric concentration, and the sink rates grow proportionally with the concentration, a constant increase in the source rate (say, 8 GTC / yr) results, after a time, in a new concentration level sufficient that the increased sink rate equals the new source rate.

What is not obvious (in fact, ignores the straightforward linear model of the system) is that the 8 GTC / yr anthropogenic contribution is completely responsible for the increase.

The year by year human emissions increased from less than 3 GtC / yr in 1960 to nowadays 8 GtC / yr.

BTY: 8/50 = 0.16 GTC / yr — lost in the noise.

The anthro input currently is about 8 GtC / yr and the real sink rate is about 4 GtC / yr.

Even under these constraints it showed an output of about 1.6 GtC / yr by 2080, which as 100 % CO2 would be about 5.9 GtCO2 / yr and would equal about 17 % of present global anthro - CO2 emissions.

However, if the CH4 output is limited to 8.3 % of carbon emitted - as was observed in 2013 across the Yedoma areas of Siberia - the permafrost's annual 1.6 GtC output by 2080 would equal over 20.6 GtCO2e / yr, which is about 59 % of present anthro - CO2 outputs.

Relative to the «accepted» CO2 concentration levels for the Holocene, the rise since 1950 (311 ppm to 405 ppm) is rather steep, as is the ~ 1.5 GtC / yr emissions rate (1950) to today's (10 GtC / yr).

However, unless the sustainable sequestration rate exceeds around 1 GtC / yr, it is unlikely that it could make a large contribution.