Sentences with phrase «emissions accumulate in the atmosphere»

However, this does not mean that half the human emission accumulates in the atmosphere, as is often stated.

Not exact matches

CO2 emissions either accumulate in the atmosphere, or are absorbed by the oceans or land vegetation.

Faster sea floor spreading, presumably associated with more volcanic activity at subduction zones, and / or other increases in volcanic activity or geologic outgassing, or faster oxidation of exposed fossil organic C (as in shales)-- greater geologic CO2 emissions (I think another way of looking at the inorganic part is that any given region of sea floor has less time to accumulate carbonate minerals from chemical weathering, so that C reservoir could shrink while others, including the atmosphere, can grow).

The manmade emissions fueling global warming are accumulating so quickly in the atmosphere that climate change could spiral out of control before humanity can take measures drastic enough to cool the earth's fever, many climate scientists say.

This is in contrast to CO2, which accumulates in the atmosphere / ocean system, meaning that steady (non-rising) emissions still lead to a rising atmospheric concentration.

Thus, at that point in the future, a lessor volume of accumulated GHGs in the atmosphere would mean a global climate that is not as warm as the global climate would have been had we not emitted fewer GHG emissions now.

I once pointed out to an academic from a developed nation that the emissions resulting from their country's two - car households had been accumulating in the atmosphere for decades.

The problem is that the rate of emissions has no direct effect on temperature; it is the accumulated level in the atmosphere that creates a radiative imbalance that causes temperature to rise.

Ideas that we should increase aerosol emissions to counteract global warming have been described as a «Faustian bargain» because that would imply an ever increasing amount of emissions in order to match the accumulated GHG in the atmosphere, with ever increasing monetary and health costs.

Although emissions from developing countries now dominate, the industrial countries set the world on its global warming path with over a century's worth of CO2 emissions that have accumulated in the atmosphere.

I prefer the trend of the accumulated emissions, which is a near perfect fit for the observed accumulation in the atmosphere, above the temperature trend which is not so perfect... See and compare: with:

On the other hand, the correlation between accumulated emissions and accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere is much better: it is a near fit over the last 100 + years (60 years of ice core data, near 50 years of MLO data).

That may seem a long time away, but because carbon dioxide piles up in the atmosphere over time, as water blasting from a faucet accumulates in a sink, avoiding the two - degrees tipping point would require slashing emissions starting now, the IPCC said.

And according to emissions specialists like the Tyndall Centre's Kevin Anderson (as well as others), so much carbon has been allowed to accumulate in the atmosphere over the past two decades that now our only hope of keeping warming below the internationally agreed - upon target of 2 degrees Celsius is for wealthy countries to cut their emissions by somewhere in the neighborhood of 8 — 10 percent a year.27 The «free» market simply can not accomplish this task.

Second, cumulative emissions are particularly important, because it is the accumulated stock of GHGs in the atmosphere that cause climate change.

Storms and extreme rainfall events have always happened, but with the added heat in the atmosphere and oceans due to greenhouse gas emissions, storms now occur with increasing accumulated energy and higher moisture loading.

A few other problems: - While there is an extremely good correlation between accumulated emissions and accumulation in the atmosphere, the correlation is less when one looks at the year by year increase, simply because temperature changes have a short term influence (about 4 ppmv/degr.C) on the increase rate, not on the trend!

Alas, I believe the preponderance of evidence strongly supports the claim that anthropogenic emissions are having an effect on the global climate, and that effect will increase as greenhouse gases accumulate in the atmosphere.

Spring (ice melt) and fall (destratification) turnover events can result in pulse emissions wherein gasses that have accumulated under the ice or thermocline are suddenly mixed upward and vented to the atmosphere as a lake circulates.

IPCC scientists assume that human CO2 emissions will continue to accumulate in the atmosphere, remaining anywhere from hundreds to thousands of years.

Up until now, 29 per cent of human emissions of carbon dioxide has been taken up by the oceans, 28 per cent has been absorbed by plant growth on land, and the remaining 43 per cent has accumulated in the atmosphere.

While the world gathers for yet another climate conference, emissions continue to accumulate in the atmosphere.

IPCC writes page 10 § B. 5 of the Summary for Policy Makers: «From those cumulative anthropic emissions 240 [230 à 250] Gt - C have accumulated in the atmosphere»

With the greenhouse gases already accumulated in the atmosphere, it would take less than 30 years for it to be inevitable that temperature would in time reach 2 °C above the pre-industrial level if the global greenhouse - gas emissions stayed at their current rate.

A central hurdle is that carbon dioxide accumulates in the atmosphere like unpaid credit card debt as long as emissions exceed the rate at which the gas is naturally removed from the atmosphere by the oceans and plants.

So there is another reason to believe that while humans certainly ARE adding CO2 to the atmosphere, it isn't the primary component (we already know it isn't the primary component because the atmosphere is accumulating CO2 at a much faster rate than humans add each year) because while human emissions have been rising nearly exponentially, atmospheric CO2 has been rising linearly and that rate of rise did not change when global human CO2 emissions fell in absolute terms (tons of CO2 emitted to atmosphere fell in 2009, rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 unchanged).

Because carbon dioxide accumulates in the atmosphere and some part of it stays there essentially forever, historic emissions matter more than current emission rates.

The linked post is discusses the fact that reducing the rate of CO2 emission is insufficient, that it's the actual amount of CO2 accumulated in the atmosphere by ANY positive net rate (emission - absorption).

Don't worry yet mate because: «Land and ocean CO2 sinks respectively removed 30 % and 25 % of all anthropogenic CO2 emissions over the period 2000 — 2008, leaving about 45 % to accumulate in the atmosphere.»

He said simply reducing emissions would not be enough to lower the economic costs because carbon dioxide accumulates in the atmosphere.

Nothing changes the fact that carbon dioxide is accumulating in the atmosphere thanks to human emissions from burning carbon - based fuels such as coal and oil.

That means that about 184 GtC from the 300 + GtC emissions of the past 150 + years has accumulated as mass in the atmosphere.

That means that about 80 % of the emissions accumulate in % in the atmosphere, the first year of the emissions.

The emissions, if these would accumulate in total in the atmosphere should give an increase of 2.93 ppmv / yr (1990 - 2002) and 3.51 ppmv / yr (2003 - 2005).

In all cases, the natural cycles accumulate in mass -0.5 units and the emissions still are accumulating 1 unit in mass... The net result in all cases is +0.5 unit accumulating in mass in the atmospherIn all cases, the natural cycles accumulate in mass -0.5 units and the emissions still are accumulating 1 unit in mass... The net result in all cases is +0.5 unit accumulating in mass in the atmospherin mass -0.5 units and the emissions still are accumulating 1 unit in mass... The net result in all cases is +0.5 unit accumulating in mass in the atmospherin mass... The net result in all cases is +0.5 unit accumulating in mass in the atmospherin all cases is +0.5 unit accumulating in mass in the atmospherin mass in the atmospherin the atmosphere.

How much of the original emissions in % accumulate in the atmosphere is of a different order.

Trouble is, if we went whole - hog on SAI without reducing carbon emissions, greenhouse gases would continue to accumulate in our atmosphere, meaning we'd need to keep pumping particles skyward forever to keep global warming at bay.