Sentences with phrase «accumulating in the atmosphere at»

CO2 is accumulating in the atmosphere at alarming rates, and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently stated that the majority of known reserves of fossil fuels will need to be left in the ground if we [& hellip

And that lull in warming has occurred even as greenhouse gases have accumulated in the atmosphere at a record pace... The slowdown is a bit of a mystery to climate scientists.

Not exact matches

In an article published in the journal Scientific Reports, the research team estimates that given the rate at which the peatland is now losing mercury back to the atmosphere, it will take just a few decades for all of the mercury pollution accumulated in the peatland to have disappeared, with most of it going back to the atmospherIn an article published in the journal Scientific Reports, the research team estimates that given the rate at which the peatland is now losing mercury back to the atmosphere, it will take just a few decades for all of the mercury pollution accumulated in the peatland to have disappeared, with most of it going back to the atmospherin the journal Scientific Reports, the research team estimates that given the rate at which the peatland is now losing mercury back to the atmosphere, it will take just a few decades for all of the mercury pollution accumulated in the peatland to have disappeared, with most of it going back to the atmospherin the peatland to have disappeared, with most of it going back to the atmosphere.

That would translate to steadily rising temperatures as carbon pollution continues to accumulate in the atmosphere (see red curve below), and fail to reach the goal of holding warming to 2 °C (blue curve at bottom).

To see how quickly these particles are accumulating in the atmosphere, Carlo Barbante, an environmental chemist at the University of Venice, looked at snowpack and ice cores brought from Greenland.

Using climate models at the Laboratoire de Météorologie Dynamique, François Forget (CNRS) and Martin Turbet (UPMC) show that, with a cold climate and an atmosphere denser than it is today, ice accumulated at around latitude 25 ° S, in regions corresponding to the sources of now dry river beds.

Faster sea floor spreading, presumably associated with more volcanic activity at subduction zones, and / or other increases in volcanic activity or geologic outgassing, or faster oxidation of exposed fossil organic C (as in shales)-- greater geologic CO2 emissions (I think another way of looking at the inorganic part is that any given region of sea floor has less time to accumulate carbonate minerals from chemical weathering, so that C reservoir could shrink while others, including the atmosphere, can grow).

About 2.3 billion years ago oxygen has saturated the planet's surface and rapidly accumulated in vast amounts in our atmosphere, From that point on Earth's atmosphere became a glowing indicator of life for the entire Galaxy — at least, for civilizations that are slightly better in building telescopes than we are.

Thus, at that point in the future, a lessor volume of accumulated GHGs in the atmosphere would mean a global climate that is not as warm as the global climate would have been had we not emitted fewer GHG emissions now.

Unprecedented amounts of greenhouse gases (at least over the last few hundred thousand years) continue to accumulate in the atmosphere and the global climate (land surface, ocean, glaciers, stratosphere) continues to respond as predicted by theory and models.

The growth rates the trends are irrelevant as are comparisons, for imho the only data that counts the headline number, becasue that does actually represent Total Accumulated CO2 in the atmosphere at any poit in time, and as such that does therefore represent the actual real scientifically based Climate Forcing of CO2 in the present.

Even if ocean surface temperatures fall as in (3), heat continues to accumulate in the earth system until the amount of outgoing radiation at the top of atmosphere equals the amount of incoming radiation there.

Energy is accumulating at the surface and in the lower atmosphere, so the model climate is no longer in a steady state.

The fact that the global temperature has remained unchanged for a decade requires that the quantity of reflecting aerosols dumped put in our atmosphere must be increasing year on year at precisely the exact rate needed to offset the accumulating carbon dioxide that wants to drive the temperature higher.

Of the many heat - trapping gases, CO2 puts us at the greatest risk of irreversible changes if it continues to accumulate unabated in the atmosphere — as it is likely to do if the global economy remains dependent on fossil fuels for its energy needs.

Not only is it the largest ocean, it also contains the «oldest water» — that is the water that (due to a giant slow loop in the thermohaline circulation) spends the longest time without contact with the atmosphere, with the best chance of accumulating CO2 (as carbonate) at the bottom.

A few other problems: - While there is an extremely good correlation between accumulated emissions and accumulation in the atmosphere, the correlation is less when one looks at the year by year increase, simply because temperature changes have a short term influence (about 4 ppmv/degr.C) on the increase rate, not on the trend!

You do have such an amazing molecule in your fictional world, defying gravity it can stay up in the atmosphere for hundreds and even thousands of years accumulating though it's one and a half times heavier than air, and, with no heat capacity to spit at, it can trap heat, or, heck you can't even get your stories to say the same thing consistently, it becomes this great thermal blanket stopping heat escaping... just how much of that blanket is holes?

It is possible that the main reason why the time - integral of solar variability is of more importance to global temperature change in the medium to long term than short - term solar - energy variability is that, over time, half of any net increase in heat will accumulate in the oceans (the rest will radiate out to space), and the oceans, being a little warmer, will maintain the atmosphere at a warmer temperature than it might otherwise have exhibited.

With the greenhouse gases already accumulated in the atmosphere, it would take less than 30 years for it to be inevitable that temperature would in time reach 2 °C above the pre-industrial level if the global greenhouse - gas emissions stayed at their current rate.

A central hurdle is that carbon dioxide accumulates in the atmosphere like unpaid credit card debt as long as emissions exceed the rate at which the gas is naturally removed from the atmosphere by the oceans and plants.

So there is another reason to believe that while humans certainly ARE adding CO2 to the atmosphere, it isn't the primary component (we already know it isn't the primary component because the atmosphere is accumulating CO2 at a much faster rate than humans add each year) because while human emissions have been rising nearly exponentially, atmospheric CO2 has been rising linearly and that rate of rise did not change when global human CO2 emissions fell in absolute terms (tons of CO2 emitted to atmosphere fell in 2009, rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 unchanged).

At this time carbon is entering the atmosphere faster than it is removed — so CO2 is accumulating in the atmosphere.

Hence, virtually all of the ecological overshoot comes from the EF's measure of the rate at which carbon dioxide is accumulating in the atmosphere.

At this stage source > sink so CO2 is accumulating in the atmosphere — and humans are one of those sources.

Carefully measured concentrations of greenhouse gases from human sources verify that they are accumulating in the earth's atmosphere at a rate not seen in hundreds of thousands of years.

RealClimate is wonderful, and an excellent source of reliable information.As I've said before, methane is an extremely dangerous component to global warming.Comment # 20 is correct.There is a sharp melting point to frozen methane.A huge increase in the release of methane could happen within the next 50 years.At what point in the Earth's temperature rise and the rise of co2 would a huge methane melt occur?No one has answered that definitive issue.If I ask you all at what point would huge amounts of extra methane start melting, i.e at what temperature rise of the ocean near the Artic methane ice deposits would the methane melt, or at what point in the rise of co2 concentrations in the atmosphere would the methane melt, I believe that no one could currently tell me the actual answer as to where the sharp melting point exists.Of course, once that tipping point has been reached, and billions of tons of methane outgass from what had been locked stores of methane, locked away for an eternity, it is exactly the same as the burning of stored fossil fuels which have been stored for an eternity as well.And even though methane does not have as long a life as co2, while it is around in the air it can cause other tipping points, i.e. permafrost melting, to arrive much sooner.I will reiterate what I've said before on this and other sites.Methane is a hugely underreported, underestimated risk.How about RealClimate attempts to model exactly what would happen to other tipping points, such as the melting permafrost, if indeed a huge increase in the melting of the methal hydrate ice WERE to occur within the next 50 years.My amateur guess is that the huge, albeit temporary, increase in methane over even three or four decades might push other relevent tipping points to arrive much, much, sooner than they normally would, thereby vastly incresing negative feedback mechanisms.We KNOW that quick, huge, changes occured in the Earth's climate in the past.See other relevent posts in the past from Realclimate.Climate often does not change slowly, but undergoes huge, quick, changes periodically, due to negative feedbacks accumulating, and tipping the climate to a quick change.Why should the danger from huge potential methane releases be vievwed with any less trepidation?

Trouble is, if we went whole - hog on SAI without reducing carbon emissions, greenhouse gases would continue to accumulate in our atmosphere, meaning we'd need to keep pumping particles skyward forever to keep global warming at bay.

«The CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere and there's no end point, it just gets hotter and hotter, and so at some point it becomes unliveable,» he said.