Sentences with phrase «concentrations if these scenarios»

The chart below shows what happens to total atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations if these scenarios were played out over the centuries ahead.

Not exact matches

«If the initial atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration were half its actual value, we would currently be experiencing the climate expected for the year 2050,» says Archer, setting out one possible scenario.

In the midst of an unseasonably warm winter in the Pacific Northwest, a comparison of four publicly available climate projections has shown broad agreement that the region will become considerably warmer in the next century if greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere rise to the highest levels projected in the the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) «business - as - usual» scenario.

Future projections show that, for most scenarios assuming no additional GHG emission reduction policies, atmospheric concentrations of GHGs are expected to continue climbing for most if not all of the remainder of this century, with associated increases in average temperature.

The ’10 year» horizon is the point by which serious efforts will need to have started to move the trajectory of concentrations away from business - as - usual towards the alternative scenario if the ultimate warming is to stay below «dangerous levels».

Even if CO2 concentrations were to increase according to worst - case scenarios, this, he estimates, would provide several decades» respite — which might provide time to develop non-carbon energy sources; research the intricate workings of climate systems; and plan long - term strategies to cope with a changing climate.

If he is talking about the CO2 concentration in the atomosphere then he can argue that the acutual CO2 growth was less than what was assumed by Scenario A.

If greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere were to stabilize in 2100 at levels projected in the B1 and A1B emission scenarios, a further increase in global average temperature of about 0.5 °C would still be expected around 2200.

«warming in the pipeline» usually assumes constant concentrations, not zero emissions (though if CO2 emissions were dropped to zero tomorrow, and all other emissions were held constant, I'd probably expect a little bit of warming before it turned over and started dropping) 2) Don't forget aerosols: they are following the Level 1 scenario from Wigley et al. 2009, and may actually dominate short - term temperature trends.

When asked about what scenario to look at if we overshoot even those scenarios used by the IPCC that lead to the greatest concentrations, Dr. Zwiers noted that the scenarios can be viewed in terms of time rather than simply emissions.

«I continue to believe that warming of Earth's surface temperatures from rising concentrations of greenhouse gases carries risks that society must take seriously,» he wrote, «even if we are lucky and (as my work seems to suggest) the most catastrophic warming scenarios are a bit less likely.»

If future atmospheric concentrations of GHGs increase according to the IPCC scenarios (Solomon et al. in Climate change 2007: working group I.

If we add anthropogenic CO2 in this scenario, it now has less of a pCO2 gradient for flow into the ocean, and so the concentration of excess CO2 should decline by even less than half, leaving an even larger fraction in the atmosphere.

In fact, among the 900 scenarios the report authors examined, if greenhouse gas concentrations remain above current levels in 2030, «many models... could not produce scenarios reaching atmospheric concentration levels that make it as likely as not that temperature change will remain below 2 °C relative to pre ‐ industrial levels.»

On the A2 scenario, which comes closest to today's actual CO2 emissions, the IPCC predicts (or, if you prefer, «projects») that CO2 concentration will rise exponentially.

And, if one does the fit to a function of a constant baseline + and an exponential function in the same way Monckton did his fit simply for an exponential function (with a real data constraint in 2000 and the central A2 scenario value in 2100), one gets pretty good agreement between the predicted 2010 value of CO2 concentration and the actual value.

This summer, a paper published in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences put forward a scenario whereby if carbon dioxide concentrations doubled, impacting temperature as well as precipitation, global output could be reduced by 3 percent.

(trouble is 35 is for carbon dioxide concentration, and 65 is for forcing, so if that's the calculation it was indeed a typo in a spreadsheet) Actually CO2 as a percentage of all radiative forcing would be: 43/65 * 100 = 66 % You messed up the link (I think) so that it actually leads back to this page rather than the FAQ section http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/whats-wrong-with-warm-weather.html Never mind, as you know, I don't think the costs imposed by that change are large, not as long as sea level rise is only 50 cm over a hundred years (and the midpoint for the scenarios I consider most policy relevant, ie those excluding lots of coal burning after 2050, is somewhat lower still) and the change in «weather extremes» largely amounts to nothing more than what would be expected from moving south a few hundred kilometres.

Then the expression for the expected CO2 concentration in 2010 reads -LRB-[CO2] in 2010) = 280 + (368 - 280) * exp -LSB-(10/100) * ln -LRB-[836 - 280] / [368 - 280]-RRB--RSB-, which gives a value of 386 ppm for 2010, so in fact the rise in CO2 levels that we have seen is a bit above what is expected for the A2 scenario if we assume that the amount above the 280ppm background is increasing exponentially to a total concentration of 836ppm in 2100 and that this total concentration had the value of 368ppm in 2000.