Sentences with phrase «degrees of warming represents»

This is an interesting question — if 2 degrees of warming represents an unacceptable risk of a runaway climate and global collapse, how much risk do we want to take?

Not exact matches

Two decades after the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, most governments have agreed that limiting the increase in the average surface temperature of the Earth to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels would represent a tolerable amount of global warming.

So while the CPP may be political ambitious, it represents is only a small piece of what needs to be a more aggressive climate mitigation portfolio to align us with 2 degrees C warming scenarios that avoid dangerous climate change.

=== > The «C3» horizontal dark green line is placed at zero degree change; vertical red dashed lines represent the beginning of periods with extreme high frequency of warming adjustments; and cyan vertical dashed lines periods represent the beginning of periods with extreme high frequency of cooling adjustments.

That represents nearly 18 percent of what the world has emitted since the start of the Industrial Revolution — or more than one third of what can be safely burned and still keep global warming within 2 degrees Celsius.

Yep, no matter how one slices and dices the 5 - year average warming amounts, the modern era's warming represents an increase not even one - tenth of a degree greater than the pre-1950 warming — it is not only a statistically worthless difference, it is completely climate insignificant.

Doing so would represent a fairer share of global emission reductions, ensure the country takes full advantage of its mitigation potential, and increase the chance of limiting warming to below 2 degrees C, to help avoid the most extreme climate change impacts.

The 24X1022 Joules represent, in the scheme of things, a tiny warming of the oceans - a barely measurable total of +0.09 C degrees over 55 years.

Two decades after the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, most governments have agreed that limiting the increase in the average surface temperature of the Earth to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels would represent a tolerable amount of global warming.

However, Fullerton continued, «It is clear that business as usual with regard to our fossil fuel based energy system takes us well past 2 degrees of warming and represents a clear and immediate threat to the future of civilization.

«While 0.45 degrees C of warming is noticeable in climate terms, it isn't obvious that it represents an impending disaster»

Lets postulate for a moment that the temperature record of the entire planet since 1880 that NASA used to identify 2014 as the warmest is pristine, with 0.01 degree resolution and 0.01 degree standard deviation (necessary to conclude that a +0.02 degree anomaly represents a record).

In Bill McKibben's Rolling Stone article on Global warming's terrifying new math, McKibben notes that we can emit no more than 565 gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere by 2050 if warming is to be kept within the 2 degrees margin which represents an upper border to what our ecosystems can adapt to without disruptive change.

The Heartland Institute, a Chicago organization, issued a document last week saying that any additional global warming would likely be limited to a few tenths of a degree and that this «would not represent a climate crisis.»

In his point # 6 (Scale of Task), he states: «Scientists describe warming of two degrees Celsius (2C) not as the boundary for dangerous climate change, but as representing a boundary between dangerous and extremely dangerous CLIMATE CHANGE, pointing to a safe boundary as being under 350 parts per million carbon dioxide equivalent (ppm CO2e), more than 120 ppm CO2e below the current level.

If the low altitude cloud cover increased by only 1 % per degree of warming, this would represent -0.48 W / m ^ 2K, more than canceling out the ice - albedo effect (for comparison, Spencer et al. measured — 6.1 W / m ^ 2K or over ten times this impact)..