Sentences with phrase «future emission rates»

He needs to educate himself on climate and possible future emission rates to even have a basis for an answer.

The other points you made about how population might grow, future emissions rates, etc are a different issue.

Not exact matches

The long - term warming over the 21st century, however, is strongly influenced by the future rate of emissions, and the projections cover a wide variety of scenarios, ranging from very rapid to more modest economic growth and from more to less dependence on fossil fuels.

By the way, in my opinion, the elevated greenhouse gas levels already in the air, combined with the future emissions from machines already built, plus increased natural emissions from carbon sinks becoming carbon emitters (i.e. permafrost melting) will cause the rate of warming to top 0.4 C / decade by mid-century.

Brain research raises the possibility of a very exotic future (this article assumes that such animals wouldn't be vicious or use their new - found smarts to drive other species to extinction) «Liberated» mice from Italian lab now housed in poor conditions Methane leaks of shale gas may undermine its climate benefits: If methane leak rates are more than 3 percent of output, fracking of shale gas formations may be boosting greenhouse gas emissions rather than lowering them.

«Leaves may be staying green longer with warmer temperatures, but if our future climate is warm and dry instead of warm and wet, it is unlikely that forests can continue to offset our fossil fuel emissions at the same rate.»

In the future, losing a mere 0.2 % per year of the tundra (in the form of CO2) would add two billion tons a year to our carbon emissions, yet that rate would still leave us with over 80 % of the tundra by 2100, so it is not an especially fast loss rate compared to what we may see at 550 ppm or higher.

At a time when the take rate of diesel engines has been dwindling, what with increasingly stringent NOx and particulate emission regulations, and sales of hybrids and increasingly frugal gasoline - powered vehicles are mushrooming, the future for diesels is uncertain.

Keeping interest rates too low for too long and printing too much money — what Buffett describes as «Greenback emissions» — will result in inflation measurable in the CPI in the not too distant future.

Energy, emissions, agriculture, interest rates, government bonds, equity index and single stock futures and options

The magnitude and timing of this emission scenario is unconstrained due to large uncertainties in estimating future rates of cryosphere degradation, hydrocarbon reservoir response, and potential methane oxidation.

But the sheer rate of increase over just the past 55 years shows how fast global warming could hit us in the future — and the present — and underscores how much we've failed as a planet to slow down carbon emissions.

Paper:: Future studies using integrated assessment models and other climate simulations should include more realistic deforestation rates and the integration of policy that would reduce LULCC emissions.

But if we fail to reduce at the required rate — and the inadequate emissions targets indicate this is the intention — then we will be left with no option but to scrub the excess CO2 back out of the atmosphere in future.

At a plausible GHG emissions price of $ 50 / t CO2eq under a future US carbon mitigation policy, such co-production systems competing as power suppliers would be able to provide low - GHG - emitting synthetic fuels at the same unit cost as for coal synfuels characterized by ten times the GHG emission rate that are produced in plants having three times the synfuel output capacity and requiring twice the total capital investment.

As emissions continue to increase, both warming and the commitment to future warming are presently increasing at a rate of approximately 0.2 °C per decade, with projections that the rate of warming will further increase if emission controls are not put in place.

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.)

IF the past is any indicator of the future, then curbing emissions will have no impact on the carbon growth rate heading into the future.

What i mean is that since the carbon growth rate has been tracking temperature, then the future should see the same... (if we curb emissions and this (temp / growthrate) correlation still holds true, then our efforts will have no impact on the carbon growth rate)

afonzarelli, You said: «IF the past is any indicator of the future, then curbing emissions will have no impact on the carbon growth rate heading into the future.»

The rate and magnitude of future human - induced climate change and its associated impacts are determined by human choices defining alternative socio - economic futures and mitigation actions that influence emission pathways.

In this notion, you break down the gap between the emissions level you want at some point in the future and the emissions level you will have at current rates of growth, and break it down into manageable fractions - wedges - that can each be addressed with specific policies.

«Depending on emissions rates, carbon dioxide concentrations could double or nearly triple from today's level by the end of the century, greatly amplifying future human impacts on climate.

It ignores two real physical constraints on human CO2 emissions (plus resulting warming) in the future: — changes in human population growth rates — total carbon contained in remaining fossil fuel reserves

While the above analysis yields good results for by tying past climate change to increases in human CO2 emissions, it should be cautioned that the suggested exponential time relation is not suitable for projecting the future over longer time periods, because of possible changes in human population growth rates and absolute limitations on carbon available in remaining fossil fuels.

I'm sure you will agree that future human CO2 emissions will in some way be linked to future human population growth rates, i.e. if population grows rapidly humans will emit more CO2 in the future than if population grows slowly..

You have yet to respond specifically to my critique that you left out a key parameter when it comes to projecting future human emissions of CO2, namely the rate of growth of human population (who are emitting this CO2).

We're focused on the future with advanced vehicles like our EPA - rated 95 - MPGe Prius Plug - in Hybrid and zero emission Mirai fuel cell vehicle.

Second, both sets of intervention also bring some similar ethical risks, such as potential for certain forms of «moral hazard»: the likelihood that rates of emissions mitigation will be lower than otherwise, in the belief that SRM or CDR can rectify the «overshoot» at some future date.

It adopted a moderate anthro - emissions scenario from AR4 as the AGW input, but set arbitrary constraints on its findings by excluding the greenhouse gas outputs» warming from the assessment of the permafrost's rate of melting, and by assuming that only CO2 was emitted - which allowed the projected future output to be stated in simple carbon tonnage.

Under the assumption that society will work to avoid crossing a key temperature threshold, from figure 2a, the cumulative emission metric confirms that we have a choice of high emissions soon followed by rapid decarbonization, or more stringent emission cuts occurring soon with a lower rate of decarbonization in the future.

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.

Because an emissions peak in the next decade will be heavily constrained by the rate of emissions today, figure 5e appears to have some correlation near the present day, which gets worse as we move into the future.

Quantitative estimates of future rates of sea level rise are highly uncertain (independent of any uncertainties about future emissions), and the assessments have over-hyped the high estimates

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).

Climatologists differ on the various causes of climate change, the rate at which the earth is warming, the effect of man - made emissions on warming, the most accurate climate data and temperature sets to use, and the accuracy of climate models projecting decades and centuries into the future.

with its highly optimistic assumptions about the future availability of renewables, nuclear, and CCS, the mid-century carbon emission reduction goal could only be achieved if the annual growth in GDP per capita between now and 2050 were to slow to a rate of 1 % per year.

Thus the choice of Happer for a constant increase rate is his assumption, probably based on the expectation (as is mine) that CO2 emissions in the future will flatten with maturing industrialisation and / or newer energy production techniques.

Until methane leakage rates are scientifically determined, any ghg inventory or projection of future emissions should identify the range of leakage rates that appear in the extant literature.

However, there remains uncertainty in the rate of sea ice loss, with the models that most accurately project historical sea ice trends currently suggesting nearly ice - free conditions sometime between 2021 and 2043 (median 2035).12 Uncertainty across all models stems from a combination of large differences in projections among different climate models, natural climate variability, and uncertainty about future rates of fossil fuel emissions.

So then, since you don't doubt that ACO2 affects the climate, you only doubt how much, it would seem that theoretically at some point in the future, if the rate of increase in emissions continues apace, you would agree that ACO2 would «dominate» climate?

This market model analyzed the cost - effectiveness, energy rate and bill impacts, local job impacts, and emission impacts of an alternative future in which Rhode Island achieves five percent renewable energy penetration by 2035.

The difference between Professor Nordhaus's optimal carbon tax policy and a fifty - year delay policy is insignificant economically or climatologically in view of major uncertainties in (1) future economic growth (including reductions in carbon emissions intensity); (2) the physical science (e.g., the climate sensitivity); (3) future positive and negative environmental impacts (e.g., the economic «damage function»); (4) the evaluation of long - term economic costs and benefits (e.g., the discount rate); and (5) the international political process (e.g., the impact of less than full participation).

The main objections levied by Michaels and Dayaratna were that the Obama Administration's calculations assume too much warming from CO2 emissions, underestimate the positive effects of increased CO2, and favor low discount rates to accentuate damages in the far future.

Yet, model projections of future global warming vary, because of differing estimates of population growth, economic activity, greenhouse gas emission rates, changes in atmospheric particulate concentrations and their effects, and also because of uncertainties in climate models.

AK, to me a reduction of CO2 levels is much less likely than a significant reduction in the emission rate of CO2, which is already unlikely in the near future.

The effect of this increase on the growth rate of atmospheric methane has been masked by a coincident decrease in wetland emissions, but atmospheric methane levels may increase in the near future if wetland emissions return to their mean 1990s levels.

At discount rates that reflect the opportunity cost of capital, the current costs of taking action to reduce GHG emissions now and in the near future are almost certainly greater than the benefits.

We're at about 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions a year — and notwithstanding the global economic slowdown, probably poised to rise 2 % per year (the exact future growth rate is quite hard to project because it depends so much on what China does and how quickly peak oil kicks in).

... Thus, to stabilize global emissions at some (higher) level in the future, the decarbonization rate would have to at least double to offset the current rate of economic growth.»