Sentences with phrase «high emissions scenarios as»

Still, our understanding has a wide range of projections, particularly for high emissions scenarios as Jevrejeva et al. (2014) illustrates.

Still, our understanding has a wide range of projections, particularly for high emissions scenarios as Jevrejeva et al. (2014) illustrates.

Not exact matches

The consequences of the three other scenarios, which range as high as total carbon emissions of 5,120 billion tons, are substantially greater and should be considered «increasingly likely» given contemporary growth in carbon emissions, according to the report.

The researchers find that «ocean - driven melt is an important driver of Antarctic ice shelf retreat where warm water is in contact with shelves, but in high greenhouse - gas emissions scenarios, atmospheric warming soon overtakes the ocean as the dominant driver of Antarctic ice loss.»

They looked at each of those conditions through, first, a business - as - usual lens that assumes a lack of international climate - policy action with continued high rates of greenhouse gas emissions and, second, an optimistic scenario of reduced emissions with climate change policy interventions.

If nations continue to increase their emissions of greenhouse gases in a «business - as - usual» scenario, the U.S. ratio of daily record high to record low temperatures would increase to about 20 to 1 by midcentury and 50 to 1 by 2100.

But if they're growing (as a GW feedback) at a substantially high rate, say 7 % / yr, then we'd be looking at triple David Archer's worst case emission scenario to year 2100.

This is presented as a worst - case scenario — what might be expected to happen if a) nothing is done to curb GHG emissions and b) the climate sensitivity is in the higher range Peter Cox and other leading scientists now believe possible.

The area of near - surface permafrost in the Northern Hemisphere is projected to decline by 20 % relative to today's area by 2040, and could be reduced by as much as two - thirds by 2080 under a scenario of high greenhouse gas emissions.

If Dr. Hansen never imagined Scenario A as being a real possibility for the next 20 years, I guess indicated by his description «Scenario A, since it is exponential, must eventually be on the high side of reality in view of finite resource constraints and environmental concerns, even though the growth of emissions in Scenario A (~ 1.5 % yr - 1) is less than the rate typical of the past century (~ 4 % yr - 1)» then his subsequent comment (PNAS, 2001) «Second, the IPCC includes CO2 growth rates that we contend are unrealistically large» seems to indicate that Dr. Hansen doesn't support some of the more extreme SRES scenarios.

This has implications for future scenario's, as a lower sensitivity for CO2 (and a higher for solar) means that there will be less warming for the same CO2 emissions (assuming no large excursions of solar).

Actual and projected emission levels are already at the high end of Hansen's «alternative scenario» which was suggested as an achievable outcome (based on significant control efforts) that kept forcings (including Co2, CH4 and black carbon) below a level that Hansen considered would be «dangerous» (specifically a level that would avoid the melting of any significant fraction of the WAIS or Greenland ice sheet).

Interestingly, the recent ABARE AP6 reference emission scenario gives an upper temperature almost as high in 2030 (0.05 Â °C lower and it is largely based on IEA projections).

You also said that «the recent ABARE AP6 reference emission scenario gives an upper temperature almost as high in 2030 (0.05 Â °C lower» and that «If more aggressive sulphate reductions were to occur, warming would be as high [as in A1T] by that time.»

Leaving the Paris accord and failing to meet our commitment — as Trump intends — puts the world on track for a «higher emissions» scenario that leads to unimaginable impacts.

When the paper described scenario A as continuing the present emissions growth, with the only caveat being that it must «eventually» be on the high side of reality as resources dwindle, most people, including myself who has an engineering degree, would understand that scenario A was the emission path that the world was then following.

For the study, the researchers used a set of 10 global climate models to simulate future changes in wind power under a high future emissions scenario (known as RCP8.5) and a moderate emissions scenario (known as RCP4.5).

Under the IS92a «business as usual» emissions scenario CO2 concentrations reached about 980 ppmv by 2100, which is about 280 ppmv higher than when these feedbacks were ignored.

The modeling results indicate that, if nations continue to increase their emissions of greenhouse gases in a «business as usual» scenario, the U.S. ratio of daily record high to record low temperatures would increase to about 20 - to - 1 by mid-century and 50 - to - 1 by 2100.

In the Drawdown Scenario, emission reductions could reach as high as 17 gigatons, and 26 gigatons in the Optimum Scenario over 2020 - 2050.

These include a «business as usual» or high emissions scenario (RCP8.5; blue), an intermediate emissions scenario (RCP4.5; purple), a scenario where warming is limited to 2C (red), a scenario where warming is limited to 1.5 C (black) and a scenario where warming is limited to 1.5 C but with a temporary temperature overshoot (orange).

RCP8.5 is the highest of the emissions scenarios used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and is described in this paper as «business - as - usual».

And of course, results are contingent upon the scenario assumed, such as high emissions reductions, which is in effect the Tele's key point.

Current Business - As - Usual (BAU) emissions are running higher than that (tracking the A1F1, or high emissions, scenario).

Projections from process - based models of global mean sea level (GMSL) rise relative to 1986 — 2005 as a function of time for two scenarios — RCP2.6, a low emissions scenario, and RCP 8.5, a high emissions scenario.

The main result of the paper, as highlighted in the abstract, is that for the highest - emissions RCP8.5 scenario predicted warming circa 2090 [7] is about 15 % higher than the raw multimodel mean, and has a spread only about two - thirds as large as that for the model - ensemble.

Both wetland drying and the increased frequency of warm dry summers and associated thunderstorms have led to more large fires in the last ten years than in any decade since record - keeping began in the 1940s.9 In Alaskan tundra, which was too cold and wet to support extensive fires for approximately the last 5,000 years, 105 a single large fire in 2007 released as much carbon to the atmosphere as had been absorbed by the entire circumpolar Arctic tundra during the previous quarter - century.106 Even if climate warming were curtailed by reducing heat - trapping gas (also known as greenhouse gas) emissions (as in the B1 scenario), the annual area burned in Alaska is projected to double by mid-century and to triple by the end of the century, 107 thus fostering increased emissions of heat - trapping gases, higher temperatures, and increased fires.

Scenario 3, the most ambitious case, assumes extensions of policies to implement emerging technologies, such as higher vehicle fuel efficiencies, greater amounts of biofuels, more zero - emission and natural gas vehicles, and a higher renewable portfolio standard.

Trenberth still relates the effect from CO2 based on 100ppmv causing an increase of 0.6 °C but does not subtract the 0.5 °C of natural warming as recovery from the LIA that has nothing to do with CO2 emissions therefore producing an effect six times too high for the effect from increased CO2 Trenberth is not aware that CO2 is not increaseing at an accelerated rate as predicted by Hansen but at a near linear rate averaging 2.037 ppmv / year so by 2100 the concentration will not be as predicted by the IPCC as per scenario A1 but merely reach a level of 573.11 ppmv by 2100, This is only in the case that CO2 increase is maintained but this may not happen as the rate appears to be slowing down with the average rate for the past 5 years being lower than the rate for the past ten years.

The paper concluded that worldwide temperatures could rise nearly 5 °C by the end of the century, 15 percent higher than the previous central estimate under the «business as usual» emissions scenario outlined by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

A far as CO2 emissions and CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere, it seems that we are still on the high end of IPCC scenarios for CO2 emissions to the atmosphere.

Lower map shows model projections of the change in storage by 2100 as a result of nitrogen and phosphorus limits, under a high emissions scenario (RCP8.5).