Sentences with phrase «if atmospheric emissions»

Not exact matches

According to his calculations, global infrared emission would be 0.8 watts per square metre higher if all atmospheric ice crystals contained lead compared with none.

«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.

Even if all greenhouse emissions were to stop today, atmospheric carbon dioxide will remain high for millennia, and ocean surface temperatures will stay elevated even longer, a new study predicts.

«If we want natural gas to be the cleanest fossil fuel source, methane emissions have to be reduced,» says Gabrielle Pétron, an atmospheric scientist at NOAA and at the University of Colorado in Boulder, and first author on the study, currently in press at the Journal of Geophysical Research.

If humanity does not act to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels will continue to climb and Earth's average temperature will escalate.

Stable atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases would lead to continued warming, but if carbon dioxide emissions could be eliminated entirely, temperatures would quickly stabilize or even decrease over time.

The letter notes that «Stable atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases would lead to continued warming, but if carbon dioxide emissions could be eliminated entirely, temperatures would quickly stabilize or even decrease over time.

Recall that even if we keep atmospheric emissions below 450ppm, we still have only lowered the chance of catastrophic climate change to below 50 % — not eliminated it (Source: IPCC Fourth Assessment).

«If atmospheric CO2 emissions and air temperatures continue to rise, the male god may soon never cross the lake again to visit the female god as he has in Shinto legend for centuries.»

However, even if we're lucky and the climate sensitivity is just 2 °C for doubled atmospheric CO2, if we continue on our current emissions path, we will commit ourselves to that amount of warming (2 °C above pre-industrial levels) within the next 75 years.

If we continue increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations with emissions from the burning of coal, oil, and gas, the Earth will continue to get hotter.

Future global temperature change should depend mainly on atmospheric CO2, at least if fossil fuel emissions remain high.

Indeed, impacts of Arctic warming include the melting of major Arctic glaciers and Greenland (containing the potential for up to 7 meters of sea level rise if it were to melt entirely), the thawing of carbon rich permafrost (which could add to the burden of atmospheric greenhouse gas emissions) and signs of worsening wildfires across the boreal forests of Alaska, to name a few.

It is instructive to see how fast atmospheric CO2 declines if fossil fuel emissions are instantly terminated (Fig. 4B).

Why on earth would you expect the atmospheric CO2 to start declining rapidly, even if we halted emissions?

Yet over the period 2020 - 2100 RCP2.6 includes 290Gt (C) of net CO2 emissions, a quantity which would raise atmospheric CO2 levels by 62ppm if it had been released in recent decades, 53ppm above that expected for 2100.

• The methanetrack.org website has shown significant increases in atmospheric methane concentrations over Antarctica this austral winter (which I believe are due to increases in methane emissions from the Southern Ocean seafloor due to increases in the temperature of bottom water temperatures), and if this trend continues, then the Southern Hemisphere could be a significant source of additional atmospheric methane (this century).

According to James Hansen, if we reduce emissions by 3 % / year starting in 2020, atmospheric CO2 levels will stabilize and we can stay below +1.5 ºC warming (see his Young Peoples Burden Paper (Figures 10 - 12): https://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/8/577/2017/esd-8-577-2017.pdf

# 22: I ask myself, if global CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 levels have exceeded the worst case scenario predicted by the IPCC # 4, for 2008, were is there any integrity in the statement,» We reconfirm the significance of the IPCC # 4 ″?

But even if they were, that «first graph» shows not emissions but atmospheric concentrations.

If emissions did plateau, the atmospheric concentrations would continue to rise at a steady rate but with just 2 % (compound) difference from the rises of recent decades.

Putting the effects of higher atmospheric concentrations aside, if we double, triple, quadruple CO2 concentrations, how long does it take to reduce those emissions?

If we multiply that over ten years, and figure that the top billion or so of world population is responsible for the lion's share (say 80 %) of the emissions, could we then conclude that, on average, every member of that top billion (presumably including all on this forum) had contributed the energy equivalent of one Hiroshima bomb (or more) toward atmospheric global warming over the last decade?

If you know that the total mass of fossil fuel emissions is roughly double the total annual atmospheric accumulation it's a little easier to realize that all the other possible explanations are besides the point, even if there is a little source here and a little sink therIf you know that the total mass of fossil fuel emissions is roughly double the total annual atmospheric accumulation it's a little easier to realize that all the other possible explanations are besides the point, even if there is a little source here and a little sink therif there is a little source here and a little sink there.

Thus, if the absorption of the infrared emission from atmospheric greenhouse gases reduces the gradient through the skin layer, the flow of heat from the ocean beneath will be reduced, leaving more of the heat introduced into the bulk of the upper oceanic layer by the absorption of sunlight to remain there to increase water temperature.

If we simply cut emissions in half, atmospheric concentrations will continue to rise (although, an instantaneous cut in half may cause them to drop initially).

Of course, if you're serious about stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, achieving the American goal in 2020 is just step one in what would have to be a centurylong 12 - step (or more) program to completely decouple global energy use from processes that generate heat - trapping 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).

Future projections show that, for most scenarios assuming no additional GHG emission reduction policies, atmospheric concentrations of GHGs are expected to continue climbing for most if not all of the remainder of this century, with associated increases in average temperature.

Any program that reduces current emissions by some percent but doesn't contribute to cutting long - term atmospheric GHGs will not produce tangible climate change benefits except the lame claim that «things would be even worse» if we do nothing.

If we do overshoot our carbon «budget» in the next several decades, the only way to return atmospheric CO2 concentrations to levels that avoid climate change will be to deploy large - scale CDR projects capable of generating net «negative» emissions:

If Mackay means by this that only a small amount of the ~ 39 % increase in atmospheric CO2 since «pre-industrial» times is directly attributable to human CO2 emissions, I'd say this sounds much too low (but I have not asked Mackay whether or not that is what he had in mind and, if so, what his basis isIf Mackay means by this that only a small amount of the ~ 39 % increase in atmospheric CO2 since «pre-industrial» times is directly attributable to human CO2 emissions, I'd say this sounds much too low (but I have not asked Mackay whether or not that is what he had in mind and, if so, what his basis isif so, what his basis is).

It is predicted that if our current emissions stay the same, our atmospheric temperature will increase by another 3.21 degrees Celsius by 2050 (3).

But if you think that that's a causal relationship, think again: about 75 % of «conservatives» (individuals with political outlooks to the «right» of the mean on the same scale) know that scientists believe CO2 emissions increase atmospheric temperatures, too.

This would be helpful in calculating the atmospheric concentration at which CO2 would cease to increase if emissions were naturally (or forcibly) capped at X % higher levels than today.

The change to the 12C: 13C isotope ratio of atmospheric CO2 is in the direction expected if the recent increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration were caused by the anthropogenic emission of CO2.

If the anthropogenic forcing wouldn't keep increasing anymore (because we would manage to suddenly reduce CO2 emission to a level that merely compensates upkeep by sinks, somehow, and the atmospheric concentration would remain constant) then surface temperature would slowly rise until the TOA balance is restored (and then rise some more as slow feedbacks kick in).

In my opinion, and in the view of most economists, those steps must be accompanied by a rising price on carbon emissions if we hope to stabilize atmospheric composition.

Richard S Courtney (00:08:00): The change to the 12C: 13C isotope ratio of atmospheric CO2 is in the direction expected if the recent increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration were caused by the anthropogenic emission of CO2.

As a result, global warming will continue to affect life on Earth for hundreds of years, even if greenhouse gas emissions are reduced and the increase in atmospheric levels halted.

She continues by emphasizing the too - little appreciated fact that — in the words of climate scientist Susan Solomon — «atmospheric temperatures... are not expected to decrease significantly even if the carbon emissions cease» and that warming is essentially irreversible over a «time scale exceeding the end of the millennium in year 3000.»

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.»

If you are silly enough to contemplate a 2 ˚C rise, then just to have a 66 per cent chance of limiting warming at that point, atmospheric carbon needs to be held to 400ppm CO2e and that requires a global reduction in emissions of 80 per cent by 2050 (on 1990 levels) and negative emissions after 2070.

Here it is useful to note that an atmospheric concentration level close to 550 ppm CO2e would result by 2050 if greenhouse gas emissions simply continued at present levels without any increases in the intervening years.

You could help clairify things by answering the following question: If atmospheric layers A and B each contain greenhouse gases, under what conditions will we find that the rate of absorption by layer B of layer A's thermal emission equal the rate of absorption by layer A of layer B's emission?

If global greenhouse gas emissions peaked in 2010 the annual emissions reduction rate necessary to stabilize atmospheric carbon at 450 ppm, the Stern Review suggests, would be 7 percent, with emissions dropping by about 70 percent below 2005 levels by 2050.

If we assume (as IPCC does) that human CO2 emissions are the single cause of increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations, the we could asymptotically reach an absolute highest level of atmospheric CO2 of around 1,030 ppmv WHEN ALL FOSSIL FUELS ARE 100 % USED UP.

This has always been the only serious risk and what must be avoided if the US and the developed world is to have a prosperous future that will allow humans to have access to the fossil fuel - generated energy needed for continued economic progress and improved human welfare and if plants are to not to lose partial access to one of their basic nutrients (assumming CO2 emissions reductions have any real effects on atmospheric CO2 levels).

Requires the President, if the NAS report finds that emission reduction targets are not on schedule or that global actions will not maintain safe global average surface temperature and atmospheric GHG concentration thresholds, to submit a plan by July 1, 2015, to Congress identifying domestic and international actions that will achieve necessary additional GHG reductions.

However, even if we're lucky and the climate sensitivity is just 2 °C for doubled atmospheric CO2, if we continue on our current emissions path, we will commit ourselves to that amount of warming (2 °C above pre-industrial levels) within the next 75 years.