Sentences with phrase «higher cumulative emissions»

Any delay in reducing CO2 emissions is likely to lead to higher cumulative emissions, and more warming.

Not exact matches

, «Their emissions are low now, but their historical cumulative emissions are higher!»

«The average per capita resource use in wealthy countries is 5 to 10 times higher than in developing countries, and the developed countries are responsible for over three quarters of cumulative greenhouse gas emissions from 1850 to 2000.»

«The higher the cumulative carbon emissions are, the warmer it gets.»

Toyota's own data show that the cumulative effect of full hybrid operation leads to high proportions of zero - emissions, EV driving.

By some estimates, cumulative emissions in 2014 might be higher than the models simply be because emissions were consistently above the RCP range between 2005 - 2014.

It's a big job, but it's one that has to be done anyway, since if the whole world tries to pull itself into prosperity by burning carbon at the rate the US does, then we run out of coal even at the highest estimates by 2100, and you wind up with no fossil energy and the hellish climate you get from 5000 gigatonnes cumulative emission.

If this is right, the Millar available cumulative emissions budget would be biased high.

If you want to talk about equity, look at the cumulative emissions of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and going into the oceans and acidifying it, and the vast majority comes from the industrializied countries, the US and so forth — and the per capita emissions are much higher.

The AEO2015 cases with the largest differences in cumulative emissions from the Reference case are two cases that consider higher or lower macroeconomic growth.

For example, the «400 ppm CO2 - e» emissions pathway in the Knopf et al. study has cumulative fossil fuel emissions of about 1100 gigatonnes from 2000 to 2050, far higher than the cumulative emissions in our 350 ppm pathway.

Other marine - based drainage systems become unstable under higher emission scenarios, until most of the marine ice is eventually lost to the self - reinforcing feedback after about 2500 GtC of cumulative carbon release

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.

«The proportionality of warming to cumulative emissions depends in part on a cancellation of the saturation of carbon sinks with increasing cumulative emissions (leading to a larger airborne fraction of cumulative emissions for higher emissions) and the logarithmic dependence of radiative forcing on atmospheric CO2 concentration [leading to a smaller increase in radiative forcing per unit increase in atmospheric CO2 at higher CO2 concentrations; Matthews et al. (2009)-RSB-.

This means that, up to roughly 1.8 °C, the cumulative emissions between 2010 and 2050 has some skill in predicting peak CO2 - induced warming, but this skill is reduced for higher temperatures.

The yellow emission pathway has a higher cumulative total than the green one, when integrated to the time when temperatures peak.

Despite this higher cumulative total, the green curve has a higher peak warming than the yellow curve because its emissions are put into the atmosphere over a shorter time period.

But if cumulative emissions are high, the portion remaining in the atmosphere could be higher than this, models suggest.

«In our mor recent global model simulations the ocean heat - uptake is slower than previously estimated, the ocean uptake of carbon is weaker, feedbacks from the land system as temperature rises are stronger, cumulative emissions of greenhouse gases over the century are higher, and offsetting cooling from aerosol emissions is lower.

The recent U.S. contribution to annual global emissions is about 18 %, but the U.S. contribution to cumulative global emissions over the last century is much higher.

The AEO 2017 Reference case features marginally lower emissions than AEO 2016 (a cumulative decrease of 1 percent between 2017 and 2030), and features 2050 emissions over four times higher than is recommended by climate scientists (see Figure 5).

Cumulative non-CO2 emissions are lower than those in the RCP2.6 pathway by about 15 %, but annual non-CO2 emissions still remain above a fairly high minimum level («floor») of around 5 Gt CO2e.

Primary energy demand until 2035, from «Facing China's Coal Future», figure 1, page 7, Increases in carbon emissions by fuel type for regions with highest absolute emissions growth, 2008 - 2035 from IEO2011, figures 115, page 143, and «Cumulative carbon dioxide emissions by region», figure 116, also on page 143, same link as above.

It gives a TCR range of 1.0C - 2.5 C and a transient response to cumulative CO2 emissions of 0.8C - 2.5 C. Again, no best estimates, so they really don't know what climate sensitivity might actually be; could be low, could be high.

The majority of the world's people live at what would be considered desperate poverty levels in developed countries, the average per capita material and energy use in developed countries is higher than in developing countries by a factor of 5 to 10 [25], and the developed countries are responsible for over three quarters of cumulative greenhouse gas emissions from 1850 to 2000 [85].