Sentences with phrase «emission rates given»

The dataset was bound to show a wide range of emission rates given regional differences in regulations and other factors, he said.

Not exact matches

Furthermore, they say these developed countries must give them, at bargain rates or for free, new technology for emissions control and a transfer of intellectual property rights to any new clean technology so they can copy the processes and not have to pay to import them from the West.

That target has been «applauded by the international community given China's emissions have been growing at rates of 5 % to 8 % over the past decade and a half,» says Canadell, who is also executive director of the Global Carbon Project, an international consortium of scientists studying the global carbon cycle.

Given those findings and the rest of the improved understanding of the climate system, the IPCC projects that if carbon dioxide gas emissions — the primary cause of warming — continue to grow at the recent rate, the world would warm 2oC above 19th - century levels by the middle of this century.

Key to the new estimate are so - called emissions factors, which are derived from the carbon content, heating value, oxidation rate, and other variables that allow carbon emissions to be calculated for the amount of a given fuel consumed.

On time - scales of a few decades, the current observed rate of warming can be used to constrain the projected response to a given emissions scenario despite uncertainty in climate sensitivity.

Even if global emission rates are stabilized at present — day levels, just 20 more years of emissions would give a 25 % probability that warming exceeds 2 °C.

The European homologation has already been completed and Pagani says the official CO2 rating for the Huayra on the combined cycle is 343g / km, which compares very well to other supercars like the Lamborghini Aventador (398g / km) and the Bugatti Veyron (596g / km), giving Pagani access to markets denied to many other supercar manufacturers, who are increasingly having to look at hybrid options in order to meet new emission requirements.

This plug - in hybrid vehicle generates 308 combined horsepower and gives you 14 miles of emission - free driving and an astounding EPA rated 56 MPGe.

The 1971 model had a respectable 315 hp (235 kW), but that was reduced to a mere 205 hp (153 kW) by the 1976 model year; increasingly stringent exhaust emission limits reduced engine output, and an industry - wide 1972 change in rating systems reduced the horsepower numbers produced by any given engine.

These systems maximize efficiency and low - end torque, giving sparkling performance while also maintaining EPA - rated mileage figures of 23mpg in the city and 32mpg on the highway, as well as a LEV - 2 CARB emissions rating.

But even given its penchant for redline - reaching antics, i - VTEC helps the RSX Type - S return a LEV - 2 emissions rating and EPA fuel - mileage ratings of 23mpg city and 31mpg highway.

The Ridgeline's engine may seem small by pickup standards, but Honda's tech gives it a ULEV - 2 emissions rating.

Instead, it gives the e-Golf 83 miles of zero emission driving, according to its EPA rating.

Stop by our dealership or give us a call for more information., WHEEL WIDTH: 7, ABS AND DRIVELINE TRACTION CONTROL, FUEL CONSUMPTION: HIGHWAY: 23 MPG, RADIO DATA SYSTEM, FRONT SHOULDER ROOM: 66.0, CRUISE CONTROL, 4 DOOR, URETHANE STEERING WHEEL TRIM, REAR SHOULDER ROOM: 65.7, FRONT SPLIT - BENCH, FRONT LEG ROOM: 41.0, VIDEO MONITOR LOCATION: FRONT, TIRES: SPEED RATING: S,TILT - ADJUSTABLE STEERING WHEEL, SEATBELT PRETENSIONERS: FRONT, TOTAL NUMBER OF SPEAKERS: 6,FOLD - UP CUSHION REAR SEATS, CHROME BUMPERS, FRONT HEAD ROOM: 41.0, ELECTRIC POWER STEERING, DOOR REINFORCEMENT: SIDE - IMPACT DOOR BEAM, TIRES: PREFIX: P, SILVER ALUMINUM RIMS, POWER REMOTE DRIVER MIRROR ADJUSTMENT, TRANSMISSION GEAR SHIFTING CONTROLS ON STEERING WHEEL, CHROME GRILLE, VARIABLE INTERMITTENT FRONT WIPERS, MANUAL CHILD SAFETY LOCKS, TIRES: PROFILE: 70, BRAKING ASSIST, URETHANE SHIFT KNOB TRIM, TIRES: WIDTH: 265 MM, LEFT REAR PASSENGER DOOR TYPE: CONVENTIONAL, FRONT VENTILATED DISC BRAKES, HEATED PASSENGER MIRROR, REAR DOOR TYPE: TAILGATE, HEATED DRIVER MIRROR, VEHICLE EMISSIONS: ULEV II, POWER REMOTE PASSENGER MIRROR ADJUSTMENT, REAR BENCH, WHEEL DIAMETER: 17, DRIVER AIRBAG, INDEPENDENT FRONT SUSPENSION CLASSIFICATION, SHORT AND LONG ARM FRONT SUSPENSION, OVERALL LENGTH: 229.0, COIL FRONT SPRING, REAR CENTER SEATBELT: 3 - POINT BELT, FRONT HIP ROOM: 63.2, PASSENGER AIRBAG, ENGINE IMMOBILIZER, TRANSMISSION HILL HOLDER, EXTERNAL TEMPERATURE DISPLAY, SIDE AIRBAG, PASSENGER VANITY MIRRORS, FUEL CONSUMPTION: CITY: 16 MPG, AUXILLIARY ENGINE COOLER, 1 ST AND 2ND ROW CURTAIN HEAD AIRBAGS, DUSK SENSING HEADLIGHTS, REMOTE POWER DOOR LOCKS, DIAMETER OF TIRES: 17.0, WHEELBASE: 140.0, AM / FM / SATELLITE RADIO, RIGHT REAR PASSENGER DOOR TYPE: CONVENTIONAL, MANUAL FRONT AIR CONDITIONING,METAL - LOOK DOOR TRIM, COMPASS, CUPHOLDERS: FRONT AND REAR, POWER WINDOWS, TWO 12V DC POWER OUTLETS, LIFTGATE WINDOW: POWER, FUEL CAPACITY: 26.0 GAL., CRUISE CONTROLS ON STEERING WHEEL, STEEL SPARE WHEEL RIM, COIL REAR SPRING, OVERALL WIDTH: 79.4, FLOOR MATS: CARPET FRONT AND REAR, CLOTH SEAT UPHOLSTERY, AUXILLIARY TRANSMISSION COOLER, INSTRUMENTATION: LOW FUEL LEVEL, RIGID AXLE REAR SUSPENSION, STABILITY CONTROL,4 - WHEEL ABS BRAKES, UCONNECT W / BLUETOOTH WIRELESS PHONE CONNECTIVITY, CLOCK: IN - RADIO DISPLAY, HEADLIGHTS OFF AUTO DELAY, PRIVACY GLASS: DEEP, TIRE PRESSURE MONITORING SYSTEM: TIRE SPECIFIC, SUSPENSION CLASS: REGULAR, FIXED ANTENNA, REGULAR FRONT STABILIZER BAR, DIGITAL AUDIO INPUT, REAR STABILIZER BAR: REGULAR, GROSS VEHICLE WEIGHT: 6,800 LBS.

The 1.5 - litre dCi 90 diesel Captur is the most economical model and while Renault hasn't released fuel economy figures yet for the 2018 version, CO2 emissions of 138g / km give it a 32 % Benefit - in - Kind (BiK) rating for company - car drivers.

Its latest - generation 3.0 - litre straight - six diesel comes with an all - aluminium crankcase as well as common - rail direct fuel injection with piezo - injectors, delivers 180 kW at 4,000 rpm, and gives the car average fuel consumption in the combined EU cycle of just 6.5 litres / 100 kilometres, as well as a CO2 emission rating of just 173 grams per kilometer.

Key Message 1: Climatic Trends Recent observations confirm that, given high rates of observed emissions, the worst - case IPCC scenario trajectories (or even worse) are being realised.

Rate of percentage annual growth for carbon dioxide has certainly increased since the beginning of the 21st century, but this should result in a significant change in the rate of warming any more quickly than the differences between emission scenarios would, and there (according to the models) the differences aren't significant for the first thirty - some years but progressively become more pronounced from then on — given the cummulative effects of accumulated carbon dioxRate of percentage annual growth for carbon dioxide has certainly increased since the beginning of the 21st century, but this should result in a significant change in the rate of warming any more quickly than the differences between emission scenarios would, and there (according to the models) the differences aren't significant for the first thirty - some years but progressively become more pronounced from then on — given the cummulative effects of accumulated carbon dioxrate of warming any more quickly than the differences between emission scenarios would, and there (according to the models) the differences aren't significant for the first thirty - some years but progressively become more pronounced from then on — given the cummulative effects of accumulated carbon dioxide.

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).

Thus, higher contaminant concentrations are expected at lower ventilation rates given constant emission rates.

Given the framing of these points, I think a fair null for point 3 would be: Continued emissions of GHG at the same rate as the last 30 years will cause the warming to continue at the minimum rate of 0.17 oC / decade for X years.

What is observed is that exponential increasing human emissions give an exponential increase in the atmosphere and an exponential increase in sink rate.

The time period we have left at current emissions rates would be reduced by 6 years, to as little as 16 years, if we give ourselves a two - thirds chance of staying below two degrees, once we factor in carbon cycle feedbacks.

Why was the rate of sea level rise higher during the 1900 - 1950 period (~ 2 mm / yr, Holgate, 2007; Jevrejeva et al., 2008) than it has been during the 1958 - 2014 period (1.42 mm / yr, Frederiske et al., 2018) given the anthropogenic CO2 emissions rates during the 1958 - 2014 period?

Given the current «sink» rates of ~ 2 ppm of our emissions not staying in the atmosphere, if constant, if we stopped emitting CO2 it would take 50 - 60 years to absorb the 100 ppm over pre-industrial levels.

Inclusion of short - term forcing agents within a rate - of - change target is a natural extension of this approach, and could provide a framework for including both emissions rates, or «flows», as well as cumulative emissions, or «stocks», into a set of climate targets that are better informed by current climate science than emissions rates in a given year or long - term concentrations.

* In the Chancel / Piketty proposal, the exemption threshold is defined by the global average per - capital emission rate, which they give as 6.2 tCO2e per year; only individuals with emissions above this threshold are taken to have global obligations, in proportion to their emissions above the threshold.

The enormous increase in the magnitude of the challenge that has been caused by delay given the limited carbon budget can be seen from a recent statement of Jim Hansen who said that «the required rate of emissions reduction would have been about 3.5 % per year if reductions had started in 2005 and continued annually thereafter, while the required rate of reduction, if commenced in 2020, will be approximately 15 % per year.

At 50 % participation rate the cost penalty for the participants is 250 % to achieve a a given global emissions reduction.

This gives the rate of change of future emissions according to the equations below: where Ea is the carbon emissions in year t, H (t) is historical emissions data, a, b, c, d, f, g and h are constants, and t0 is the year at which historical data are replaced by emission pathways.

Given this pattern and the high fraction of nutrient enriched, productive reservoirs in our GHG database (of systems where trophic status data were available, 38 % and 24 % were eutrophic and mesotrophic respectively), it is likely that a large fraction of reservoirs are highly productive and therefore support high CH4 emission rates.

For a given peak rate of warming, and hence for a given peak emissions rate, pathways with a lower cumulative total or lower emissions in a given year must have a faster rate of decline after the peak.

According to Reuters, «The plan gives states multiple options to achieve their emission targets, such as improving power plant heat rates; using more natural gas plants to replace coal plants; ramping up zero - carbon energy, such as solar or nuclear; and increasing energy efficiency.

One may, however, question the studies that indicate very rapidly increasing and decreasing N2O emissions, given the main sources of N2O (these are mostly agricultural and will grow at a modest rate, in the future, but to some degree are also difficult to abate).

All real materials have differing rates of energy absorption and emission given as a fraction of Einstein's ideal black body.

Given the reluctance, at virtually all levels, to openly engage with the unprecedented scale of both current emissions and their associated growth rates, even an optimistic interpretation of the current framing of climate change implies that stabilization much below 650 ppmv CO2e is improbable....

a. ECS = 1.65 to 3.2 C b. Emissions rates, e.g. RCP4.5, 6, 8.5 c. Damage function =??? (This is the most critical of all, but I don't understand the input parameters or how how to vary them to give justifiable range of impacts) d. Appropriate discount rates, e.g. = 3 %, 5 %, 7 %, 10 % (i.e., up to what has been widely used by aid agencies for investment decisions for infrastructure projects over the past half century or so — e.g. 10 % and 12 % by World Bank for energy projects).

So, someone just reckoned since we had to give up heat rate to meet emissions limits, there wasn't much point in having the award anymore.»

So you don't doubt that there is an effect — which given that there is an rate of increase in emissions means that if continued in perpetuity it would eventually dominate.

The 2007 IPCC report found that the cost of actions to stabilize concentrations of heat - trapping emissions at a level that gives us a good chance of avoiding dangerous warming would amount to less than a 0.12 percent reduction in average annual global gross domestic product (GDP) growth rate in 2050.

Discussions of isotope ratios and uptake and emission of CO2 by all the various and sundry physical and biological processes are distractions to the simplest and most compelling line of evidence that the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations is primarily anthropogenic — to wit, comparing the expected concentration increase based on anthropogenic emission rates with the actual increase over a given period of time.

Given the massive change in the rate of anthropogenic emissions over this period, it is difficult to conceive of how this would be possible if anthropogenic emission really was a dominant control on atmospheric concentration.

Before you give in to misinformation, get the facts on how your state rates for global warming emissions from electric versus gas - powered cars.

Given the rate of China's economic growth and its large population, it's perhaps unsurprising that the country is responsible for an ever increasing share of global emissions.

When combining benefits and costs, the IWG used inappropriately low discount rates, giving the false impression that the benefits of reducing emissions are greater than the costs.

The solar constant for Earth is commonly given at 1366 W / m ^ 2, and to make a simple average of what is absorbed over the surface and atmosphere, and absorption rates etc, (and the outgoing emissions, spread over the entire sphere), when the wattage is proportional to the fourth power of T, introduces a few complications.

It's relatively low per capita emissions (for an industrialized country) were given mixed ratings on the grounds that this has been achieved through reliance on nuclear power, which WWF does not consider to be a truly sustainable solutions.

Given the substantial growth of energy consumption in China, it seems likely that when the global economy improves, the rate of CO2 emissions may grow even faster than projected in some of the middle range scenarios.

Recent observations confirm that, given high rates of observed emissions, the worst - case IPCC scenario trajectories (or even worse) are being realised.