Sentences with phrase «cumulative emissions of carbon»

What if cumulative emissions of carbon were not limited?

His work has shown that limiting cumulative emissions of carbon dioxide may be a more robust approach to climate change mitigation policy than attempting to define a «safe» stabilization level for atmospheric greenhouse gases.

Instead, what's important is the cumulative emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2)-- since a single molecule of CO2 can linger in the atmosphere for as long as 1,000 years — emitted since the dawn of the industrial era.

Not exact matches

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.

From 2000 - 2013 China produced 2.9 gigatonnes less carbon than previous estimates of its cumulative emissions.

The United States is the second biggest emitter of carbon dioxide worldwide (and has contributed, with Europe, 52 % of the share of cumulative carbon emissions since industrialization).

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).

By framing the issue in terms of a carbon budget based around cumulative emissions, the IPCC's most recent report showed that it doesn't necessarily matter what short - term emissions reduction targets are adopted, or which country cuts emissions by a particular amount relative to another nation's pledges.

A global warming target is converted to a fossil fuel emissions target with the help of global climate - carbon - cycle models, which reveal that eventual warming depends on cumulative carbon emissions, not on the temporal history of emissions [12].

The emission limit depends on climate sensitivity, but central estimates [12]--[13], including those in the upcoming Fifth Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [14], are that a 2 °C global warming limit implies a cumulative carbon emissions limit of the order of 1000 GtC.

Finally, to revisit the question originally posed @ 203: Assuming the IEO2011 Reference case of «1 trillion metric tons of additional cumulative energy - related carbon dioxide emissions between 2009 and 2035», and given that this case equates to following RCP8.5 until 2035 as previously demonstrated @ 408, what increase in average global surface temperature relative to pre-industrial would result by 2035?

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.»

Assuming the IEO2011 Reference case of «1 trillion metric tons of additional cumulative energy - related carbon dioxide emissions between 2009 and 2035», and given that this case equates to following RCP8.5 until 2035 as previously demonstrated @ 408, what increase in average global surface temperature relative to pre-industrial would result by 2035?

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).

In contrast, the CO2 emissions emitted by a coal plant represents a cumulative contribution to the atmospheric stock of carbon.

Holding concentrations or temperature (more remotely) to a particular target therefore means limiting cumulative emissions of, say, carbon over time... a limited amount of time if we are talking about an iterative approach, and over a long period of time if we are talking about reducing the likelihood of some very nasty consequences well after we (but not our grandchildren — if we are lucky enough to have some) are gone.

The proportionality of global warming to cumulative carbon emissions, H.D. Matthews et al, Nature 459, 829 - 832 (11 June 2009) http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7248/abs/nature08047.html

«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.

Other marine - based drainage systems become unstable under higher emission scenarios, until most of the marine ice is eventually lost to the self - reinforcing feedback after about 2500 GtC of cumulative carbon release

IPCC AR5 summarizes the scientific literature and estimates that cumulative carbon dioxide emissions related to human activities need to be limited to 1 trillion tonnes C (1000 PgC) since the beginning of the industrial revolution if we are to have a likely chance of limiting warming to 2 °C.

«With cumulative fossil fuel emissions of 10,000 gigatonnes of carbon (GtC), Antarctica is projected to become almost ice - free with an average contribution to sea - level rise exceeding 3 meters per century during the first millennium.»

Our analysis combines published relationships between cumulative carbon emissions and warming, together with two possible versions of the relationship between warming and sea level, to estimate global and regional sea - level commitments from different emissions totals.

Cumulative emissions from producing and burning Canadian oil would use up 16 % of the world's carbon budget to keep temperatures below 1.5 degrees, or 7 % of the budget for 2 degrees.

Here we develop relationships between cumulative carbon emissions and long - term sea - level commitment and explore implications for the future of coastal developments in the United States.

Solomon argued a couple of years ago that cumulative carbon emissions are the best way of assessing climate risk, since they avoid problems such as time lags that mess with other measures, such as atmospheric concentrations.

Projections of long - term committed SLR as a function of cumulative carbon emissions, with 66 % CIs, assuming (triggered case) or not assuming (baseline case) that eventual collapse of the WAIS is already inevitable.

By «committed» or «locked in» warming or sea level in a given year, we refer to the long - term effects of cumulative anthropogenic carbon emissions through that year: the sustained temperature increase or SLR that will ensue on a time scale of centuries to millennia in the absence of massive and prolonged future active carbon removal from the atmosphere.

They argue that keeping the most likely warming due to CO2 alone to 2 °C will require us to limit cumulative CO2 emissions over the period 1750 — 2500 to 1 trillion tonnes of carbon.

Regarding text stating that limiting warming from anthropogenic CO2 emissions alone to likely less than 2 °C since 1861 - 1880 requires cumulative emissions to stay below 1000 gigatonnes of carbon (GtC), Saudi Arabia urged using 1850 for consistency, to which the CLAs responded that some model simulations only begin in 1860, which delegates agreed to reflect in a footnote.

Shown are three idealized Co2 emission paths (a) each consistent with total cumulative emissions (b) of 1 trillion tonnes of carbon -LSB-...]

Armed with our model ensemble projection, a temperature limit (2 °C), exceedance likelihood (33 %) and our «one model, one vote» ensemble interpretation, we find the cumulative carbon emission where approximately 33 % of our modeled realizations have warmed more than 2 °C.

Cumulative carbon emission budgets are one of the most important and policy relevant results that come out of attempts to quantify future climate change.

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.

While the models get the warming just about right for the current concentrations of CO2, the fact that they tend to have lower estimates of historical emissions means that the carbon budgets based on the relationship between cumulative CO2 emissions and warming tend to be on the low side.

This watershed, painstaking analysis traces emissions totaling 914 gigatons of carbon dioxide - equivalent — which amounts to 63 % of the cumulative worldwide emissions of industrial CO2 and methane between 1751 and 2010 — to 90 so - called «carbon major» entities worldwide.

This ends up changing estimates of cumulative carbon emissions since the pre-industrial period, but given the large uncertainties involved the authors caution against using these revisions to draw conclusions about remaining carbon budgets associated with staying within the 2C or 1.5 C warming targets.

Cumulative carbon dioxide emissions should be calculated on a per capita basis for each country, so that every nation can shoulder a common but differentiated responsibility for climate change... Such a calculation «better reflects the principal of equity for developing countries»...

They estimate the relationship between observed warming and observed cumulative CO2 emissions, calculating the «transient climate response to cumulative emissions» — the amount of warming per teratonne carbon (TtC, or 1000 gigatonnes carbon).

Studies surveyed Millar, R. et al. (2017) Emission budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5 C, Nature Geophysics, doi: 10.1038 / ngeo3031 Matthews, H.D., et al. (2017) Estimating Carbon Budgets for Ambitious Climate Targets, Current Climate Change Reports, doi: 10.1007 / s40641 -017-0055-0 Goodwin, P., et al. (2018) Pathways to 1.5 C and 2C warming based on observational and geological constraints, Nature Geophysics, doi: 10.1038 / s41561 -017-0054-8 Schurer, A.P., et al. (2018) Interpretations of the Paris climate target, Nature Geophysics, doi: 10.1038 / s41561 -018-0086-8 Tokarska, K., and Gillett, N. (2018) Cumulative carbon emissions budgets consistent with 1.5 C global warming, Nature Climate Change, doi: 10.1038 / s41558 -018-0118-9 Millar, R., and Friedlingstein, P. (2018) The utility of the historical record for assessing the transient climate response to cumulative emissions, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, doi: 10.1098 / rsta.2016.0449 Lowe, J.A., and Bernie, D. (2018) The impact of Earth system feedbacks on carbon budgets and climate response, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, doi: 10.1098 / rsta.2017.0263 Rogelj, J., et al. (2018) Scenarios towards limiting global mean temperature increase below 1.5 C, Nature Climate Change, doi: 10.1038 / s41558 -018-0091-3 Kriegler, E., et al. (2018) Pathways limiting warming to 1.5 °C: A tale of turning around in no time, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, doi: 10.1098 / rstaCumulative carbon emissions budgets consistent with 1.5 C global warming, Nature Climate Change, doi: 10.1038 / s41558 -018-0118-9 Millar, R., and Friedlingstein, P. (2018) The utility of the historical record for assessing the transient climate response to cumulative emissions, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, doi: 10.1098 / rsta.2016.0449 Lowe, J.A., and Bernie, D. (2018) The impact of Earth system feedbacks on carbon budgets and climate response, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, doi: 10.1098 / rsta.2017.0263 Rogelj, J., et al. (2018) Scenarios towards limiting global mean temperature increase below 1.5 C, Nature Climate Change, doi: 10.1038 / s41558 -018-0091-3 Kriegler, E., et al. (2018) Pathways limiting warming to 1.5 °C: A tale of turning around in no time, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, doi: 10.1098 / rstacumulative emissions, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, doi: 10.1098 / rsta.2016.0449 Lowe, J.A., and Bernie, D. (2018) The impact of Earth system feedbacks on carbon budgets and climate response, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, doi: 10.1098 / rsta.2017.0263 Rogelj, J., et al. (2018) Scenarios towards limiting global mean temperature increase below 1.5 C, Nature Climate Change, doi: 10.1038 / s41558 -018-0091-3 Kriegler, E., et al. (2018) Pathways limiting warming to 1.5 °C: A tale of turning around in no time, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, doi: 10.1098 / rsta.2016.0457

They both end up getting estimates of transient climate response to cumulative emissions smaller than what is found in climate models — and a carbon budget that is correspondingly larger.

The idea of a «carbon budget» that ties an amount of future warming to a total amount of CO2 emissions is based on a strong relationship between cumulative emissions and temperatures in climate models.

Not counting carbon emissions from burning the coal, scientists, environmentalists, and concerned citizens along coal transport routes are worried that these cumulative impacts will harm public health, disrupt their daily lives, and negatively impact the ecological health of waterways along the path from mine to port.

A carbon budget is the cumulative amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions permitted over a period of time to keep within a certain temperature threshold.

By aggregating savings since 2008, this equates to a cumulative 8,178,000 tonnes of carbon emissions that have been avoided over the entire period.

This means that only two emission targets — the peak rate and cumulative carbon emissions — are needed to constrain two key indicators of CO2 - induced climate change (peak warming and peak warming rate), as evidenced by the maximum - likelihood estimation method used above.

A number of recent studies have found a strong link between peak human - induced global warming and cumulative carbon emissions from the start of the industrial revolution, while the link to emissions over shorter periods or in the years 2020 or 2050 is generally weaker.