Sentences with phrase «happen with emissions»

This diagram shows our understanding of what the science says needs to happen with emissions («One scenario for achieving this...»).

That study was a book length, massively peer reviewed analysis of what's happened with emissions and was hardly the only thing written on this topic.

Not exact matches

This happens to be a point in time when Alberta and Ottawa are working intensely on what our new oil and gas regulations will look like with respect to emissions.

And our companies have pledged to work with government leaders, environmental organizations and other businesses to ensure these emission reductions are happening throughout the United States.

«You might expect air quality would decline if ammonia emissions go up, but this shows it won't happen, provided the emissions from combustion go down,» said Fabien Paulot, an atmospheric chemist with Princeton University and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration who was not involved in the study.

It is a bid to demonstrate that the U.S. Navy can power its vehicles with more secure domestic biofuels that also happen to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions causing climate change.

Another surprise was that the rise in methane levels happened simultaneously around the globe instead of being centred near known sources of methane emissions in the northern hemisphere, said Rigby, one of the study's lead authors along with Ronald Prinn, also of MIT.

Steffen Møller - Holst at SINTEF Energy Research believes that battery - powered vehicles will play a very important role in the emission - free transport of the future, but that this will happen in combination with hybrids, rechargeable hybrids and hydrogen - powered vehicles.

That's according to Wenju Cai at the CSIRO in Melbourne, Australia, whose team ran 21 climate models with data on past and future carbon emissions to see what would happen.

This rapid turnover means that even if human activity was directly adding or removing significant amounts of water vapour (it isn't), there would be no slow build - up of water vapour as is happening with CO2 (see Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are tiny compared with natural sources).

The symptoms from those events (huge and rapid carbon emissions, a big rapid jump in global temperatures, rising sea levels, ocean acidification, widespread oxygen - starved zones in the oceans) are all happening today with human - caused climate change.

Indeed, the rehabilitation of our water bodies can not happen with a denial of science that portrays the toll of global warming on our oceans due to excessive carbon dioxide emissions and human folly in overexploitation, unregulated and destructive fishing, marine pollution and habitat destruction.

Something wrong with the seals - you could blow them out by idling too fast, which as it happens was routine during emissions testing.

As for the diesel, there's no telling what will happen, but I would expect an increase in horsepower and torque output to go with better emissions and economy as well.

air pollution alone also happens to be a rather significant portion of the emissions sins we are charged with.

Worse than that, in related «horse trading» that the industry insisted on before it would allow the regulations to happen, they managed to grandfather old coal plants — so today we are still stuck with emissions from old coal plants — most of the electricity form coal is from plants that were built before 1970, indeed, most built before 1950, I believe....

This being the inverse should imply man's influence is negligible since the closest match to reality is with draconian emission restrictions that didn't happen.

I happen to agree with Secular Animist and others that we need to cut CO2 and other ghg emissions to as close to zero as quickly as possible at thsi point no matter what further bad news from science comes along wrt said tipping points and feedbacks.

To be optimistic about the situation we need to hope that we will be lucky, that (even more) rapid change will not happen in the coming decade, and that Copenhagen puts in place a process that can be rapidly adjusted to cope with more agressive emissions cuts when the body politic wakes up to their necessity.

Zebra, You said, «Since that has zero probability of happening (re: zero net emissions), we are left with my mitigation, adaptation, and sustainability goals.»

However, the AGW side is not much better, with articles like this that basically say we're all doomed unless «emissions of greenhouse gases are reduced by 60 % over the next 10 years» (for 2 deg C rise, and the chance of avoiding each further 1 deg C rise is given as «poor» due to cascading effects) which isn't going to happen, becuase, well, China.

But whatever happens with energy choices has to apply in fast - growing places like China and India, where 97 percent of emissions growth is projected.

The ability of a band to shape the temperature profile of the whole atmosphere should tend to be maximum at intermediate optical thicknesses (for a given band width), because at small optical thicknesses, the amounts of emission and absorption within any layer will be small relative to what happens in other bands, while at large optical thicknesses, the net fluxes will tend to go to zero (except near TOA and, absent convection, the surface) and will be insensitive to changes in the temperature profile (except near TOA), thus allowing other bands greater control over the temperature profile (depending on wavelength — greater influence for bands with larger bandwidths at wavelengths closer to the peak wavelength — which will depend on temperature and thus vary with height.

And then figure the overall effects on the world of the «before» situation & compare with what is & will happen «extra» with the human emissions.

Once the ice reaches the equator, the equilibrium climate is significantly colder than what would initiate melting at the equator, but if CO2 from geologic emissions build up (they would, but very slowly — geochemical processes provide a negative feedback by changing atmospheric CO2 in response to climate changes, but this is generally very slow, and thus can not prevent faster changes from faster external forcings) enough, it can initiate melting — what happens then is a runaway in the opposite direction (until the ice is completely gone — the extreme warmth and CO2 amount at that point, combined with left - over glacial debris available for chemical weathering, will draw CO2 out of the atmosphere, possibly allowing some ice to return).

The fact that Christy and Pielke Sr. are scientists allows their skeptical positions on rapid GHG driven global warming to be even harder to deal with when I attempt to inform people that rapid GHG driven global warming is happening and that humans need to act quickly to reduce GHG emissions in order to delay and to reduce the catastrophe that lies ahead due to global warming.

What I meant was that Planck radiation increases with body or amb ient temperature, but higher temperature, per the Boltzmann distribution, makes it more probable that rotation, vibration, and / or electronic levels will be excited, and therefore less likely to emit relaxation energy, though as you point out this may not be exactly what happens physically — emission radiation is more flat than anything with increasing temperatures.

[Response: Earthquakes can happen any time and so any release associated with that has nothing to do with climate change, and no amount of emissions reductions will have any effect.

You seem to have steered clear of the questions in which science intersects with policy (global warming is happening but it's not calamitous; the costs estimated for cutting emissions exceed the overinflated costs of adaptation, etc...).

So it is quite likely that plant photosynthesis (including that happening in the ocean from phytoplankton) could well be constrained by CO2 concentration at 280 ppmv, with a slightly higher input from animal respiration plus emissions from the Earth's interior balancing out the natural decay rate.

If Max is correct, and he may well be, with his 50 % take up estimate, it would be reasonable to say, at present levels of CO2 concentrations, an immediate reduction to 50 % of present emissions (which I do realise is just not going to happen!)

We know from our work with business leaders and policymakers that climate action is happening outside of the negotiating room as much as in it, with leading sub-national governments and major companies accelerating the transition to a zero - emissions economy.

Further, what happens with the human emissions?

The emissions reductions would just happen (along with many other benefits) if we allowed it to.

Yohe: What needs to happen is for a global agreement to be reached that includes the United States from the get - go as an active participant, with agreement on the next round of emissions targets so that they will be taken a lot more seriously than Kyoto was and be a lot more effective.

Fabien Paulot, an atmospheric chemist with Princeton University and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration who was not involved in the study, said, «You might expect air quality would decline if ammonia emissions go up, but this shows it won't happen, provided the emissions from combustion go down.»

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.

Part of problem is that even with current levels of emissions, the inertia of the climate system means that not all of the warming those emissions will cause has happened yet — a certain amount is «in the pipeline» and will only rear its head in the future, because the ocean absorbs some of the heat, delaying the inherent atmospheric warming for decades to centuries.

But how is it that they «just happen'to synchronize their CO2 emissions rates in such a way as to create a rise in CO2 that's coherent with each other, with observatories that aren't near volcanos, and that are consistent with the overall «Keeling curve» as well as human emissions.

All this happening with the biggest conspirator yet: rapidly rising human emissions of GHGs that have not been seen in millions of years.

That is all what is needed to know what is happening with CO2 in nature, and that proves that nature was a net sink in the past 50 + years, even including the margins of error in the emission estimates and the CO2 measurements.

One other disadvantage of baseline and credit is that those enterprises that happened to start with emissions well below the baseline get a windfall.

Because public feedback is critical in making that happen, the next time you buy a car or truck choose the one with the lowest global warming and smog - forming emissions that meets your needs and budget.

China is currently «negotiating» with other countries regarding their annual emissions, it just so happens they are offering zero emissions reductions.

If the new forcing is actually continually increasing then a new equilibrium will never be reached (e.g. as is happening with CO2 emissions).

Yes, I can see # 2 happening to some degree because that is the conventional chemistry view, but it has to be consistent with the causality of the fluctuating man - made carbon emissions.

Compared with the potential feedbacks from fossil methane or methane hydrates, the permafrost feedback from surface thawing is more certain and will happen sooner, very likely in this century, regardless of the level of future human carbon emissions.

Apart from the direct emission impact, one of the problems that could happen with the US is if it really gets mobilised on pushing coal.

If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow the average temperature of the planet is not going to drop in several hundred years, perhaps as much as a thousand years because the system is overburdened with CO2 that has to be absorbed and that only happens slowly.

I think there is a lot more mileage in a) Hansen's Congressional testimony because he specifies a BAU and what will happen if there are no emissions curbs [subtly but profoundly different to his ’88 paper] ans b) the 1990 FAR because it made clear it's prediction of 0.3 C per decade with again, a specified BAU.