Sentences with phrase «catastrophic warming limit»

That list rated carbon - intensive resources or projects that could single - handedly pour enough carbon dioxide into the atmosphere to push the Earth's temperature above the catastrophic warming limit of 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

Not exact matches

More than 170 countries agreed early Saturday morning to limit emissions of key climate change - causing pollutants found in air conditioners, a significant step in the international effort to keep global warming from reaching catastrophic levels.

The sense at the meeting was that drastic emissions cuts are the best way to limit the catastrophic droughts and sea - level rises that global warming is expected to cause.

Keep in mind that the IEA's «450 Scenario» is intended to limit warming to 2 °C — even though we can plainly see that the warming that has already occurred is sufficient to cause far worse effects than scientists imagined possible only a few years ago, and we have every reason to believe that 2 °C will be truly catastrophic.

If they agree to limit CO2 emissions to avoid catastrophic warming, should they not expect some assistance in development of a replacement energy infrastructure at the very least?

International efforts to limit global warming will at best slow the changes, perhaps making the consequences merely terrible rather than catastrophic.

The two - and - half - page text «recognised the scientific view» that warming must be limited to a global average of 2C above preindustrial levels in order for there to be a reasonable chance of avoiding catastrophic climate change.

Even if natural gas combustion creates approaching 50 percent less CO2 equivalent per unit of energy produced, an amount which is well beyond best case on ghg emission reductions, it will not create the much greater emissions reductions necessary in the next 30 years to give any hope of limiting warming from exceeding levels that will cause catastrophic impacts.

The 2 °C warming limit has been agreed to by the international community including the United States as necessary to prevent potentially catastrophic climate change.

CO2 limits won't cool the planet, but they can make the difference between continued accelerating global warming to catastrophic levels vs. slowing and eventually stopping the warming at hopefully safe levels

Although the challenge of achieving sufficient global greenhouse gas emissions to prevent 2 °C is extraordinarily daunting, as we have explained above a 2 °C warming limit may not prevent catastrophic harm because temperature increases more than 1 °C may cause great harm.

While there have been negotiations under way on the new agreement, there has also been an attempt to increase national commitments on greenhouse gas (ghg) emissions reductions in the short - term because mainstream science is telling nations that much greater reductions in emissions are necessary in the next few years to maintain any hope of keeping warming below 20 C, a warming limit that all nations have agreed should not be exceeded to give some hope of preventing catastrophic warming.

In other words how does your emissions reduction commitment, in combination with others, achieve an acceptable ghg atmospheric concentration that limits warming to 2 °C or the 1.5 °C warming limit that may be necessary to prevent catastrophic warming?

Since the catastrophic portion of the «Global» warming appears to be severely limited to the global land as measured by thermometers inclosed in aging shelters, there just might be a correlation.

This guideline does not mean that climate change is harmless below 2 C, or that it suddenly becomes so catastrophic above 2 C that further efforts at limiting warming are pointless, but like a highway speed limit, it serves as a useful benchmark for where you start to worry about things being really bad.

Framed in this way, total emissions of a trillion tonnes of carbon will lead to a most likely warming of 2 °C, a somewhat arbitrary, but widely accepted limit on the amount of warming that the world can endure without a high risk of catastrophic consequences.

This report also highlights that current emission reduction actions are insufficient to limit global warming to the 1.5 degrees needed to avoid the most catastrophic of predicted impacts.

Yet, in its final order, FERC affirmed its highly limited Environmental Assessment, which omitted credible analysis of the project's lifecycle global warming pollution, potentially catastrophic threat to hundreds of nearby residents, pollution of the Chesapeake Bay and risk to the critically endangered right whale, along with all the pollution associated with driving demand for upstream fracking and fracked gas infrastructure.

The UNEP report is particularly relevant to the short - term situation given that the international community has agreed to limit future warming to prevent catastrophic warming to 2 ° C or perhaps 1.5 ° C if later studies demonstrate that a 1.5 ° C warming limit is necessary to prevent catastrophic harms.

Leading scientists have issued urgent warnings that future warming must be limited to no more than 1 ° C (1.8 ° F) above year 2000 levels, in order to avoid triggering climate feedbacks leading to even greater warming, and therefore catastrophic impacts such as 20 feet of sea level rise and extinction of a third of the world's species.