Sentences with phrase «at cumulative emissions»

If you want to talk about equity, look at the cumulative emissions of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and going into the oceans and acidifying it, and the vast majority comes from the industrializied countries, the US and so forth — and the per capita emissions are much higher.

Not exact matches

The approval follows a 12 - month environmental assessment of the project that looked at the adequacy of emissions estimates and air quality modelling, cumulative air emissions, potential health impacts and worker health issues.

That information can then be plugged into atmospheric models to calculate cumulative emissions across larger areas, says Steve Wofsy, an atmospheric scientist at Harvard who is working on the project.

Even the 350 - ppm limit for carbon dioxide is «questionable,» says physicist Myles Allen of the Climate Dynamics Group at the University of Oxford, and focusing instead on keeping cumulative emissions below one trillion metric tons might make more sense, which would mean humanity has already used up more than half of its overall emissions budget.

The time frame in which China's emissions were overestimated «is too short to have a cumulative impact on climate scenarios,» says Zhu Liu, the lead author and a climate change specialist at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government.

It has been estimated that to have at least a 50 per cent chance of keeping warming below 2 °C throughout the twenty - first century, the cumulative carbon emissions between 2011 and 2050 need to be limited to around 1,100 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide (Gt CO2).

Extrapolating from their forest study, the researchers estimate that over this century the warming induced from global soil loss, at the rate they monitored, will be «equivalent to the past two decades of carbon emissions from fossil fuel burning and is comparable in magnitude to the cumulative carbon losses to the atmosphere due to human - driven land use change during the past two centuries.»

Mark — What are your thoughts about the analysis by Ramanathan and Feng (PNAS, Sept 17,2008: http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0803838105), in which they calculate the committed warming of cumulative emissions since the pre-industrial era as in the region of 2.4 °C (with a confidence interval of 1.4 °C to 4.3 °C), based on calculating the equilibrium temperature if GHG concentrations are held at 2005 levels into the future.

Assuming a 50 - 50 chance that climate sensitivity is at or below this value, we thus have a 50 - 50 chance of holding warming below 2C if cumulative emissions are held to a trillion tonnes.

It's a big job, but it's one that has to be done anyway, since if the whole world tries to pull itself into prosperity by burning carbon at the rate the US does, then we run out of coal even at the highest estimates by 2100, and you wind up with no fossil energy and the hellish climate you get from 5000 gigatonnes cumulative emission.

In other words — by 2014 we'd used more of the carbon budget than any of the RCPs had anticipated and if we are not confident that the real world is cooler than the models at this level of cumulative emissions, this means that available emissions for 1.5 degrees should decrease proportionately.

But a carbon tax that increases over time at a persistent and predictable rate would minimize the expected economic cost of achieving any climate target (targets that depend, given the way the climate system works, on cumulative emissions over many decades).

«Our results show that the currently attainable carbon resources are sufficient to eliminate the Antarctic ice sheet, and that major coastal cities are threatened at much lower amounts of cumulative emissions.

Their unwillingness to take immediate action is intellectually and morally bankrupt because unless carbon emissions are stopped very soon (remember that the damage is cumulative so continuing to emit at current of even reduced rates still causes additional damage hundreds if not thousands of years into the future.)

The bottom line is, there is only one scenario with a good chance of averting irreversible climate change: one that caps global cumulative industrial - era carbon emissions at under one trillion tons.

Looking at just the 2010 numbers, for example, they show that the United States, with its exceptionally large share of the global population of people with incomes above the $ 20 per day development threshold (capacity), as well as the world's largest share of cumulative emissions since 1990 (responsibility), is the nation with the largest share (33.1 percent) of the global RCI.

Looking at the period 1850 - 2010, the United States led the pack, accounting for nearly 19 % of cumulative global emissions of GHGs, with the European Union in second place with 17 %, and China third, accounting for about 12 % of global cumulative emissions.

If we were certain that the ensemble mean warming represents the real climate systemt we could read out from figure 1c at which cumulative carbon emission we could expect to cross this threshold.

Abstract Recent estimates of the global carbon budget, or allowable cumulative CO2 emissions consistent with a given level of climate warming, have the potential to inform climate mitigation policy discussions aimed at maintaining global temperatures below 2 ° C.

We have plotted most likely peak temperatures as a function of four different cumulative emission metrics: year 1750 — 2500 (figure 3a), year 1750 to the time at which peak warming occurs (figure 3b), year 1750 — 2100 (figure 3c) and year 1750 — 2200 (figure 3d).

In figure 3b, at the upper end of the curve, where cumulative totals are large, the existence of an emissions floor seems to make little difference to the peak temperature.

«The proportionality of warming to cumulative emissions depends in part on a cancellation of the saturation of carbon sinks with increasing cumulative emissions (leading to a larger airborne fraction of cumulative emissions for higher emissions) and the logarithmic dependence of radiative forcing on atmospheric CO2 concentration [leading to a smaller increase in radiative forcing per unit increase in atmospheric CO2 at higher CO2 concentrations; Matthews et al. (2009)-RSB-.

You are right that the CO2 concentration will not necessarily be increasing at a greater rate than the cumulative CO2 emissions.

That's because CO2 takes a long time to scrub from atmosphere, so, if they are any emissions at all, this cumulative amount keeps building up, even if only 30 % of total emissions remain in atmosphere.

For the decaying emissions floor in particular, the floor will have decayed to near zero by the time that Ea (t) = FD (t), as the pathway will reach the floor at a later time than it would have if it had a smaller cumulative total.

This limited range of pathways all have a rate of warming less than 0.2 °C per decade, which initially suggests that a cumulative emissions target could be used to constrain rates of warming, assuming that rates of decline are kept at less than 4 per cent per year.

Adopt binding, verifiable, ambitious accords at COP15 [vi] reducing greenhouse gas emissions to achieve sustainable safe cumulative levels, incorporating equitably differentiated responsibilities for developed and developing countries, and substantial penalties for excessive emissions.

I may have misunderstood something, but looking at the 2 °C curve I couldn't see how the cumulative emissions fit with the 50 % chance of 2 °C carbon budget from the Synthesis report.

Cumulative change compared to fixing emissions at 1990 or 2005 levels (right).

The United States is responsible for about one - quarter of cumulative emissions, with China next at about 10 % (Fig. 11B).

I am not sure I get how you arrived at this: «During this period, anthropogenic CO2 emissions amounted to about 20 % of the total CO2 emissions» I suspect you may be forgetting that the emissions are cumulative, so even a flat blue line would go with a rising orange one.

The truth n ° 2 is important because IPCC (AR5 summary for policy makers, 2013, page 15 § D2 figure SPM 10) states that the temperature increase is a simple function like (2 CAE / 1000) °C of the Cumulative Anthropic Emissions (CAE) that were 153 Gt - C end 1978 at the beginning of the global satellite lower troposphere temperature measurements, 257 Gt - C at the beginning of the «hiatus in the warming» and 402 Gt - C end 2014.

The cumulative emissions at the end of the century (right axis) are about the same size as the remaining carbon budget in 2015.

But they have not been doing so at a rate consistent with keeping cumulative carbon emissions low enough to reliably stay below the international target of less than 2 degrees Centigrade of global warming.

The U.S. Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center database pegs cumulative global emissions since 1751 at 1,323 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide (1,450 GtCO2e including methane).

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.

At some point, even at a very low value for sensitivity, our cumulative emissions will prove significant enough to drive climate changAt some point, even at a very low value for sensitivity, our cumulative emissions will prove significant enough to drive climate changat a very low value for sensitivity, our cumulative emissions will prove significant enough to drive climate change.

If we compute the cumulative sum of the anthropogenic contribution to net global emission, we get the component of the observed increase in CO2 that is due to anthropogenic emissions, which is a steady linear trend rising at 1.5 ppmv per year.

>> The temperature response to which we are already committed at the present level of cumulative carbon emission is 3.9 °C (+ effect of non-CO2 GHG emissions) not 1.5 °C implied in the SPM

The majority of the world's people live at what would be considered desperate poverty levels in developed countries, the average per capita material and energy use in developed countries is higher than in developing countries by a factor of 5 to 10 [25], and the developed countries are responsible for over three quarters of cumulative greenhouse gas emissions from 1850 to 2000 [85].

The study «would imply that to stabilize temperature at 2 degrees Celsius, you'd have to have 15 percent less cumulative CO2 emissions,» he said.