Sentences with phrase «dangerous interference in»

Not exact matches

This is when sodium in the baby's bloodstream becomes diluted, causing tissues to swell and leading to dangerous interference with brain activity.

«Dangerous anthropogenic interference» will most likely kick in when carbon concentrations in the atmosphere are at 450 to 550 parts per million (ppm).

The objective of the treaty is to «stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.»

«We see no evidence of Kyoto actually leading to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, much less of stimulating the fundamental technological change that will be required to achieve the 60 - 80 % reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that scientists tell us the world will need to achieve in order to prevent what the Framework Convention calls «dangerous interference with the atmosphere».»

But Trump's announcement sends a strong message that the US would rather be one of only two nations in the world that is not interested in preventing «dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system».

The ultimate objective of all agreements under the UNFCCC is to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that will prevent dangerous human interference with the climate system, in a time frame which allows ecosystems to adapt naturally and enables sustainable development.

«Climate Change, Sea Level, and Western Drought: Dangerous Anthropogenic Interference Learn why the American West could be in trouble with surface air temperatures rising faster than elsewhere in the coterminous United States.

The ultimate objective of both treaties is to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that will prevent dangerous human interference with the climate system.

In a 1989 commentary for the New York Times, she wrote that, while «censorship and government interference in the directions and standards of art are dangerous and not part of the democratic process», she worked against the delivery of grants to controversial artists such as Andres Serrano and Robert Mapplethorpe, concerned that the NEA was supporting work «of increasingly dubious qualitIn a 1989 commentary for the New York Times, she wrote that, while «censorship and government interference in the directions and standards of art are dangerous and not part of the democratic process», she worked against the delivery of grants to controversial artists such as Andres Serrano and Robert Mapplethorpe, concerned that the NEA was supporting work «of increasingly dubious qualitin the directions and standards of art are dangerous and not part of the democratic process», she worked against the delivery of grants to controversial artists such as Andres Serrano and Robert Mapplethorpe, concerned that the NEA was supporting work «of increasingly dubious quality.

«Climate Change, Sea Level, and Western Drought: Dangerous Anthropogenic Interference Learn why the American West could be in trouble with surface air temperatures rising faster than elsewhere in the coterminous United States.

There is increasing evidence that some slow feedbacks can be triggered within decades, so they must be given major consideration in establishing the dangerous level of human - made climate interference.

2) We are therefore committed to taking strong and early action to tackle climate change in order to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system...

[Andy Revkin — The Article 2 mentioned above is the statement on avoiding «dangerous» human interference with climate in the original climate treaty, which was completed at the Earth Summit in Brazil in 1992.

«stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system»

The «Meeting the Climate Challenge» report tried to quantify what is meant by «dangerous» interference in climate.

The most encouraging thing for me to come from this paper is not the variance in percieved GHG and related forcing levels that may or may not constitute Dangerous Anthropogenic Interference, but the acknowledgement of the rate of change in emissions due to fuel price increases and the exponential growth of public awareness.

In the absence of being able to make that policy call at this time on dangerous interference, what we're doing as an interim measure is working bottom up to see how aggressive can we be in finding a pathway to low - carbon power generation from coal, because that accounts for more than 50 percent of emissions; how aggressive can we be in transitioning to a much greater diversity of fuel supply than petroleum, and vehicle technology, and that's 20 percent of emissions; and then what can we do much more rapidly to halt deforestation, which is 20 percent of emissionIn the absence of being able to make that policy call at this time on dangerous interference, what we're doing as an interim measure is working bottom up to see how aggressive can we be in finding a pathway to low - carbon power generation from coal, because that accounts for more than 50 percent of emissions; how aggressive can we be in transitioning to a much greater diversity of fuel supply than petroleum, and vehicle technology, and that's 20 percent of emissions; and then what can we do much more rapidly to halt deforestation, which is 20 percent of emissionin finding a pathway to low - carbon power generation from coal, because that accounts for more than 50 percent of emissions; how aggressive can we be in transitioning to a much greater diversity of fuel supply than petroleum, and vehicle technology, and that's 20 percent of emissions; and then what can we do much more rapidly to halt deforestation, which is 20 percent of emissionin transitioning to a much greater diversity of fuel supply than petroleum, and vehicle technology, and that's 20 percent of emissions; and then what can we do much more rapidly to halt deforestation, which is 20 percent of emissions.

In 2002, the president said: «I reaffirm America's commitment to the United Nations Framework Convention and its central goal, to stabilize atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations at a level that will prevent dangerous human interference with the climate.»

But despite pledging to avoid «dangerous» interference with the climate system through the buildup of greenhouse gases, the 192 countries that ratified that treaty are still on a trajectory to more than double the pre-industrial concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in this century.

(3) From the supporting perspective article: «All this would be very bad news if avoiding dangerous anthropogenic interference in the climate system required us to specify today a stabilization concentration of carbon dioxide (or equivalent) for which the risk of dangerous warming is acceptably low.

8:00 p.m. Updated Today saw the official opening in Cancún, Mexico, of talks over a new treaty aimed, theoretically, at avoiding dangerous human interference with the climate system.

Figure of 400 ppm calculated using fossil fuel emissions from G. Marland et al., «Global, Regional, and National CO2 Emissions,» in Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change (Oak Ridge, TN: Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 2007), and land use change emissions from R. A. Houghton and J. L. Hackler, «Carbon Flux to the Atmosphere from Land - Use Changes,» in Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change (Oak Ridge, TN: Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 2002), with decay curve cited in J. Hansen et al., «Dangerous Human - Made Interference with Climate: A GISS ModelE Study,» Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, vol.

In a Framework Convention on Climate Change, signed by more than 150 nations, they solemnly promised to work toward preventing «dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.»

The 1992 U.N. treaty [Framework Convention on Climate Change] called for «stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.»

It has as an «ultimate objective» the stabilising of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere «at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic (human - induced) interference with the climate system.»

The UNFCCC objective is to «stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system».

Article 2 of the FCCC states that its ultimate objective is to «achieve stabilization of greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic [man - made] interference with the climate system.»

«The ultimate objective of this Convention... is to achieve,... stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.»

The treaty's principal objective was «stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic [i.e., man - made] interference with the climate system.»

``... to achieve... stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.»

As the negotiations grow ever more technical and complex, it is good to keep in mind that the ultimate goal of the convetion is to stabilize the green house gases in the atmosphere to a level that prevents dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.

And many — and this is predominantly (although not exclusively) to be laid at the feet of the Republicans — deliberately exploited legitimate concerns about government overreach and government interference in the market to gin up a malignant hatred of government for the politically expedient purpose of laying cover for very risky and highly dangerous policies that served to benefit a tiny % of the public disproportionately.

The 2009 Copenhagen Accord — the document that emerged from that year's UN Climate Change Conference — enshrined a two - degree rise in global average temperature as the threshold of «dangerous» human interference in the climate system.

Further, the probabilistic approach reveals a picture startling to even most global - warming pessimists: If we're to avoid precipitating what that U.N. Framework Convention genteelly calls «dangerous anthropogenic interference,» we're going to have to aim at an atmospheric greenhouse - gas concentration target that, by current trends, we'll reach in less than two decades.

One of the reasons the world is now running out of time to prevent dangerous climate change is because fossil fuel companies and their allies in the US Congress has prevented the United States from taking serious action on climate change since 1992 when the George H. W Bush administration agreed in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change that the United States should adopt policies and measures to prevent dangerous anthropocentric interference on climate change on the basis of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities.

Stabilization of climate to avoid «dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system», as called for in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, will require significant cutbacks in greenhouse gas emissions during the 21st century; and

In addition to the ethical problems with cost arguments identified above in response to questions one and two, this question is also designed to expose the fact that a nation that refuses to reduce its ghg emissions to its fair share of safe global emissions is violating promises it made under the UNFCCC to adopt» policies and measures to prevent dangerous anthropocentric interference with the climate system.&raquIn addition to the ethical problems with cost arguments identified above in response to questions one and two, this question is also designed to expose the fact that a nation that refuses to reduce its ghg emissions to its fair share of safe global emissions is violating promises it made under the UNFCCC to adopt» policies and measures to prevent dangerous anthropocentric interference with the climate system.&raquin response to questions one and two, this question is also designed to expose the fact that a nation that refuses to reduce its ghg emissions to its fair share of safe global emissions is violating promises it made under the UNFCCC to adopt» policies and measures to prevent dangerous anthropocentric interference with the climate system.»

Hence, avoiding dangerous levels of CO2 - induced warming is a necessary, albeit not always sufficient, condition for avoiding potentially dangerous anthropogenic interference in the climate system.

The criterion, in the words of Article 2, is «dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system» — a framing that invokes both scientific analysis and human values.

For example, evidence regarding limits to adaptation does not substantiate or refute the idea that an increase in global mean temperature beyond 2 °C represents an adaptation limit or, subsequently «dangerous anthropogenic interference» as defined by the UNFCCC's Article II.

The ultimate objective of all agreements under the UNFCCC is to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that will prevent dangerous human interference with the climate system, in a time frame which allows ecosystems to adapt naturally and enables sustainable development.

Nations should reassert the world's commitment — first stated in the 1992 Framework Convention — to «prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system,» as well as the agreement in the 2009 Copenhagen Accord to limit the increase in global temperatures to 2 degrees C.

«I am one of those who believes that ANY REASONABLY COMPREHENSIVE AND UP - TO - DATE LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE MAKES CLEAR THAT CIVILIZATION HAS ALREADY GENERATED DANGEROUS ANTHROPOGENIC INTERFERENCE IN THE CLIMATE SYSTEM.

In many ways it would itself constitute dangerous interference with the climate system.

Even if all nations agree in principle, any levels of emissions cuts acceptable to both the global North and global South would not be enough to forestall dangerous interference with the climate.

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is an environmental treaty that nations joined in 1992, with the goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous human interference with the climate system.

Article 2 The ultimate objective of this Convention and any related legal instruments that the Conference of the Parties may adopt is to achieve, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.

The UNFCCC's purpose is to stabilise greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere at levels that prevent dangerous interferences with the climate system.

Although any definition of «dangerous interference» is by necessity based on its social and political ramifications and, as such, depends on the level of risk deemed acceptable, deep emission reductions are unavoidable in order to achieve stabilization.

As defined by the OECD, mitigation aid «contributes to the objective of stabilization of greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system by promoting efforts to reduce or limit GHG emissions or to enhance GHG sequestration.»