Sentences with phrase «about peak emissions»

Not exact matches

Total anthropogenic emissions of one trillion tonnes of carbon (3.67 trillion tonnes of CO2), about half of which has already been emitted since industrialization began, results in a most likely peak carbon - dioxide induced warming of 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial temperatures, with a 5 — 95 % confidence interval of 1.3 — 3.9 degrees Celsius.

And if you buy the IPCC's reports (figuratively speaking) the world is only about eight years away from the «deadline» the IPCC has identified for allowing emissions to peak and begin their descent if the world is to stand a 50 - 50 chance of holding global warming to about 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit by century's end.

To keep carbon emissions under the one - trillion - ton threshold, global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels must peak around 2016 and reach zero by about 2050.

Has anyone actually done any «real» laboratory experiments with CO2 mixtures, using a real 288 Kelvin thermal radiation source that is putting out a 10.1 micron peak wavelength emission spectrum at about 390 W / m ^ 2.

You either have to be talking about sucking a lot of CO2 out of the atmosphere once emissions have peaked, or you have to talk about reducing, slightly, the amount of sunlight that's coming into the system.

This projected construction represents an unprecedented opportunity for the global building sector to peak emissions by the year 2016, and completely phase out CO2 emissions by about 2050.

Emissions reductions larger than about 80 %, relative to whatever peak global emissions rate may be reached, are required to approximately stabilize carbon dioxide concentrations for a century or so at any chosen target level (see Figure 3Emissions reductions larger than about 80 %, relative to whatever peak global emissions rate may be reached, are required to approximately stabilize carbon dioxide concentrations for a century or so at any chosen target level (see Figure 3emissions rate may be reached, are required to approximately stabilize carbon dioxide concentrations for a century or so at any chosen target level (see Figure 3).»

When asked what he thought about the Danish proposal to require developing countries to determine a peak year for collective emissions (Article 9), Mr. Su responded that he was unaware of the text and that discussions of peak emission years for developing countries was premature.

A question was asked about if and when China would consider peaking its carbon emissions (see previou spost «Peaking Duck: Beijing's growing appetite for climate action «-RRB- Mr. Su basically reiterated how unfair he felt it was to talk about developing country peak emissions at this point and that developed countries should shoot for achieving their pick as soon as popeaking its carbon emissions (see previou spost «Peaking Duck: Beijing's growing appetite for climate action «-RRB- Mr. Su basically reiterated how unfair he felt it was to talk about developing country peak emissions at this point and that developed countries should shoot for achieving their pick as soon as poPeaking Duck: Beijing's growing appetite for climate action «-RRB- Mr. Su basically reiterated how unfair he felt it was to talk about developing country peak emissions at this point and that developed countries should shoot for achieving their pick as soon as possible.

If global greenhouse gas emissions peaked in 2010 the annual emissions reduction rate necessary to stabilize atmospheric carbon at 450 ppm, the Stern Review suggests, would be 7 percent, with emissions dropping by about 70 percent below 2005 levels by 2050.

In your scenarios there's a 50 year lag from the emission peak to the concentration peak for the Producer - Limited scenario and about 75 years for the Super-Kyoto scenario.

Operating cost for electric cars is $ 0.50 to $ 0.75 per mile versus $ 0.10 for gasoline powered cars once battery replacement costs are included By 2020, Chinese PER CAPITA emissions will be higher than America's Does not believe that the 0.6 degree temperature rise to date is the West's «fault,» but does believe that China is the future problem Whatever U.S. does about emissions reduction and what people do as individuals is totally trivial in face of the fact that China is adding huge amounts of coal fired generating capacity The most meaningful emissions reduction strategy today would be to convert China from coal to natural gas The claim that there are more frequent or more intense hurricanes and tornadoes as a result of AGW is not scientifically supported We can reduce emissions, but it is important that we do the RIGHT things (and NOT the WRONG ones) Not worried about «peak oil;» coal can be converted to liquid fuel

For pathways that give a most likely warming up to about 4 °C, cumulative emissions from pre-industrial times to year 2200 correlate strongly with most likely resultant peak warming regardless of the shape of emissions floors used, providing a more natural long - term policy horizon than 2050 or 2100.

Consumption of HFCs are projected to peak in the late 2020s, but emissions don't peak until about 2035.

Observations of earth emission spectra seen outside the atmosphere from satellites should co0ntain components that are emitted from surface that are 333 K or even higher; and this is important since the Wien displacement Law, would shift these emission peaks even further away from the CO2 15 micron nand as the spectral peak moves from its nominal 10.1 microns at 288 K down to about 8.7 microns at 333 K.

Why do they present plans that contain wildly optimistic assumptions about the peak in global emissions and yet a high probability of overshooting the 2 degrees C target?

They are looking like they will peak direct CO2 emissions like this article is about but they will miss by miles on non-CO2 GHG emissions.

Let's make some optimistic assumptions about the peaking year and the rate of subsequent emissions decline and see what the implications are.

Even with optimistic assumption about the peak year for global emissions and rates of emissions reductions thereafter, the best estimate is for warming to reach 4 °C in the 2070s or 2080s, well within the life - spans of children born today.

Like any attempt to determine what a ghg national target should be, the above chart makes a few assumptions, including but not limited to, about what equity requires not only of the United States but of individual states, when global emissions will peak, and what the carbon emissions budget should be to avoid dangerous climate change.

The actual amount of emissions reductions that are needed between now and 2020 is somewhat of a moving target depending on the level of uncertainty that society is willing to accept that a dangerous warming limit will be exceeded, the most recent increases in ghg emissions rates, and assumptions about when global ghg emissions peak before beginning rapid reduction rates.

Still, it suggested that «over the next decades, renewable forms of energy can gradually become competitive,» and it projected that «CO2 emissions could peak at about 10 gigatonnes of carbon (GtC) a year before the middle of the next century and decline.»

Additionally, now that we finally have a copy of the G - 77 ′ s official critique of the Danish text (see below), we were able to find some more definitive information about the controversy over emissions «peaking.»

The following is one depiction of a carbon budget prepared by the Global Commons Institute with three different reductions pathways that make different assumptions about when global ghg emissions peak.

Exxon Mobil expects global carbon dioxide emissions to peak by 2040 at about 10 percent above 2016 levels.

An «intermediate scenario» that projects carbon emissions peaking around mid-century and about 4 feet of sea level rise globally, with ice melting at a moderate rate that increases over time.

The details of this pathway are that: 1) global emissions peak soon (about 2020) and decline by 2050 to 50 percent below 1990 levels; and 2) Northern emissions simultaneously decline to 80 percent below 1990 levels.

Second, robotic probes have measured Venus» atmosphere to be about 97 % CO2, and we can see from the image above (click for a larger version) that the absorption spectrum for CO2 (at Earth temperature and pressure — Venusian temperature and pressure increases the width of the absorption bands, making CO2 a stronger absorber in Venus» atmosphere than in Earth's) strongly overlaps the peak emission spectrum of Venus» surface.

Translating this commitment into quantitative implications for cumulative carbon involves a lot of guesswork as to how China will go about fulfilling its commitment, because the agreement does not spell out the value at which emissions will peak.

Emission reductions larger than about 80 % relative to whatever peak global emissions rate may be reached are required to approximately stabilize carbon dioxide concentrations for a century or so at any chosen target level.»

China said it would increase the share of non-fossil fuels (wind and solar) as part of its primary energy consumption to about 20 % by 2030, and peak emissions by around the same point, though it would «work hard» to do so earlier.

A GHG emissions peak by about 2020 (RCP 2.6) will be necessary to keep global warming under the two degrees Celsius (above preindustrial levels) threshold.

We're at about 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions a year — and notwithstanding the global economic slowdown, probably poised to rise 2 % per year (the exact future growth rate is quite hard to project because it depends so much on what China does and how quickly peak oil kicks in).

It loses language from an earlier draft that called for cutting global emissions in half by 2050, and says nothing about a peak year by which greenhouse gases should begin to decline.

And earlier this week, another study concluded that — much like today's decisions will determine the fate of West Antarctica — decisions made today about whether or not to curb emissions will have clear repercussions in future sea level rise: For each five - year delay in «peaking» global carbon emissions, median estimates for sea level rise in 2300 go up by 20 centimeters.

As I pointed out here, CAGR for CO2 emissions from coal, oil, natural gas, flaring, and cement production averaged 3.08 % for the period 2000 - 2010, peaking to 6 % in 2003 over 2002 (though there was no hysteria that time) and again in 2010 over 2009 (much unwarranted hysteria about a single year, even by professionals but perhaps overblown by the media as usual who may have been selective about who they quoted!).

Emissions peak in 2014 and reach an annual peak reduction rate of about 6.1 % per year (6.0 % for fossil CO2 only).

This is a preliminary question about the overall business plan of Shell that, looking at your own global emissions scenarios, talks about a peaking in 2030.

The price at about $ 250 per kilowatt year is competitive with a natural gas peaker and has zero carbon emissions.

I pull this number out of my mind meaning that the N2 - O2 spectrum corresponds to a blackbody with 100um peak, which would correspond to a body at about 40K with total emission of 45mW / m2.

The imperative for carbon reduction is urgent — In order to limit the global mean temperature increase over historical norms to about 2 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which there is a high probability of catastrophic impacts), global emissions need to be reduced approximately 40 - 70 % below 2010 levels by 2050, with CO2 emissions peaking soon (IPCC, 2014).

I mean, assuming there will be no global geo - engineering scheme that removes CO2 from the atmosphere on a massive scale, if I were to take the IPCC's middle - of - the - road ECS estimate of 3º Celsius per doubling of atmospheric CO2eq and combine it with a rather weak climate mitigation emissions scenario (e.g., RCP 6.5, which peaks around 850 CO2eq ppm)... we are talking about 120º Fahrenheit days being a common occurrence in the summers of Houston far into the future, right?