Almost all the SOD's 10.2 % error standard deviation for greenhouse gas AF relates to the AF magnitude that
a given change in the greenhouse gas concentration produces, not to uncertainty as to the change in concentration.
Not exact matches
Biello: A lot of scientists that I've spoken to think we have no chance of meeting 450 ppm
given that we haven't done hardly anything to
change our course and there are other scientists who say that we have already well past kind of the safe point for
concentration of the
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Climate
change scenarios are based on projections of future
greenhouse gas (particularly carbon dioxide) emissions and resulting atmospheric
concentrations given various plausible but imagined combinations of how governments, societies, economies, and technologies will
change in the future.
If we knew ocean heat uptake as well as we know atmospheric temperature
change, then we could pin down fairly well the radiative imbalance at the top of the atmosphere, which would
give us a fair indication of how much warming is «
in the pipeline»
given current
greenhouse gas concentrations.
Paul Voosen, one of the most talented journalists probing human - driven climate
change and related energy issues, has written an award - worthy two - part report for Greenwire on one of the most enduring sources of uncertainty
in climate science — how the complicated response of clouds
in a warming world limits understanding of how hot it could get from a
given rise
in greenhouse gas concentrations:
For instance, US Senator James Imhofe of Kansas called climate
change «the greatest hoax ever» (Johnson, 2011) To claim that climate
change science is the greatest hoax ever is at minimum, if not a lie, reckless disregard for the truth
given the number of prestigious scientific organizations that have publicly supported the consensus view, the undeniable science supporting the conclusion that if
greenhouse gases increase
in the atmosphere some warming should be expected, the clear link between rising
greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere and increases
in fossil fuel use around the world, as well undeniable increases
in warming being that have been experienced at the global scale.
The presence of feedback effects and tipping points calls into question some of the most fundamental assumptions of climate
change negotiations, including the belief that we can «overshoot» to, say, 550 ppm and then work back to 450 ppm (the path advocated
in the Stern and Garnaut reports), that
greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere can be stabilised at some level, and the belief that we can adapt to some
given degree of warming.
Given the growing urgency of the need to rapidly reduce global
greenhouse gas emissions and the hard - to - imagine magnitude of global emissions reductions needed to stabilize atmospheric
concentrations at reasonably safe levels, the failure of many engaged
in climate
change controversies to see the practical significance of understanding climate
change as an ethical problem must be seen as a huge human tragedy.