Sentences with phrase «if cumulative emissions»

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

The correlation is almost as strong if cumulative emissions out to 2500 are considered (shown in black squares in figure 3a) because the vast majority of the emissions in these zero emissions floor pathways have occurred by the time of peak warming.

In general, if the cumulative emissions over the duration of the emissions floor are small compared with the overall emissions, then the floor is not particularly important.

If the cumulative emissions over the duration of the floor are a large fraction of the cumulative total, then the level of the floor is a crucial determinant of peak warming.

What if cumulative emissions of carbon were not limited?

Assuming a 50 - 50 chance that climate sensitivity is at or below this value, we thus have a 50 - 50 chance of holding warming below 2C if cumulative emissions are held to a trillion tonnes.

Not exact matches

For example, the new recommendations suggest that direct, indirect and cumulative greenhouse gas emissions from a proposed project should be modeled if the tools and data exist.

If the carbon fee had begun in 1995, we calculate that global emissions would have needed to decline 2.1 % / year to limit cumulative fossil fuel emissions to 500 GtC.

Mark — What are your thoughts about the analysis by Ramanathan and Feng (PNAS, Sept 17,2008: http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0803838105), in which they calculate the committed warming of cumulative emissions since the pre-industrial era as in the region of 2.4 °C (with a confidence interval of 1.4 °C to 4.3 °C), based on calculating the equilibrium temperature if GHG concentrations are held at 2005 levels into the future.

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.

In other words — by 2014 we'd used more of the carbon budget than any of the RCPs had anticipated and if we are not confident that the real world is cooler than the models at this level of cumulative emissions, this means that available emissions for 1.5 degrees should decrease proportionately.

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

This is only justified if we are confident that we know the current unforced temperature more accurately than we know the current cumulative emissions.

Where would you put the UK if you measured its cumulative emissions over the last hundred years, total or per capita?

Holding concentrations or temperature (more remotely) to a particular target therefore means limiting cumulative emissions of, say, carbon over time... a limited amount of time if we are talking about an iterative approach, and over a long period of time if we are talking about reducing the likelihood of some very nasty consequences well after we (but not our grandchildren — if we are lucky enough to have some) are gone.

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.

EIA says that the cumulative emissions difference between the two cases from 2012 to 2040 is 2.6 billion metric tons (2014 Annual Energy Outlook, p. IF - 7).

Their unwillingness to take immediate action is intellectually and morally bankrupt because unless carbon emissions are stopped very soon (remember that the damage is cumulative so continuing to emit at current of even reduced rates still causes additional damage hundreds if not thousands of years into the future.)

Their argument — in which they had much support from other developing nations — was: Screw you guys if you think we're going to dramatically reduce emissions without a significant amount of foreign aid from the countries who have vastly outstripped our own cumulative emissions.

IPCC AR5 summarizes the scientific literature and estimates that cumulative carbon dioxide emissions related to human activities need to be limited to 1 trillion tonnes C (1000 PgC) since the beginning of the industrial revolution if we are to have a likely chance of limiting warming to 2 °C.

If we were certain that the ensemble mean warming represents the real climate systemt we could read out from figure 1c at which cumulative carbon emission we could expect to cross this threshold.

Limiting the warming to less than 2 °C can be achieved, with a probability level of 66 %, if maximum cumulative CO2 emissions do not exceed 1000 GtC.

The text also states that cumulative CO2 emissions largely determine global mean surface warming by the late 21st century and beyond, and that most aspects of climate change will persist for many centuries even if CO2 emissions stop.

That's because CO2 takes a long time to scrub from atmosphere, so, if they are any emissions at all, this cumulative amount keeps building up, even if only 30 % of total emissions remain in atmosphere.

Cumulative emissions to 2000 are approximately 0.5 TtC, and a 1.5 GtC yr − 1 emissions floor between 2000 and 2200 has a cumulative total of 0.3 TtC, which leaves only 0.2 TtC remaining if the pathways are to have a cumulative totalCumulative emissions to 2000 are approximately 0.5 TtC, and a 1.5 GtC yr − 1 emissions floor between 2000 and 2200 has a cumulative total of 0.3 TtC, which leaves only 0.2 TtC remaining if the pathways are to have a cumulative totalcumulative total of 0.3 TtC, which leaves only 0.2 TtC remaining if the pathways are to have a cumulative totalcumulative total of 1 TtC.

For the decaying emissions floor in particular, the floor will have decayed to near zero by the time that Ea (t) = FD (t), as the pathway will reach the floor at a later time than it would have if it had a smaller cumulative total.

> If 100 companies commit to doubling energy productivity by the year 2030, over 170 million metric tons of cumulative GHG emissions could be reduced.

But if that's true, how can you explain that cumulative anthropogenic CO2 emissions have been * twice * the atmospheric increase?

The other side of the coin is that for long term warming, the cumulative emissions of CO2 are dominant, even if in the short term changes in its emission are relatively ineffectual, even more so because they are often combined with emissions of cooling aerosols.

Lauri If CO2 concentrations are only marginally predictable, please explain why it is for the last 150 the long term rise in atmospheric CO2 is extremely well modelled by 0.45 * cumulative anthropogenic emissions.

If we assume that fossil fuel emissions increase by 3 % per year, typical of the past decade and of the entire period since 1950, cumulative fossil fuel emissions will reach 10000 Gt C in 118 years.

If CO2 concentrations are only marginally predictable, please explain why it is for the last 150 the long term rise in atmospheric CO2 is extremely well modelled by 0.45 * cumulative anthropogenic emissions.

If the growth rate is brought to zero linearly over the next 15 years, the Chinese emission rate curve looks like the lower (blue) curve and would have lower cumulative emissions than the abrupt scenario even if there are no reductions in emission rate beyond 203If the growth rate is brought to zero linearly over the next 15 years, the Chinese emission rate curve looks like the lower (blue) curve and would have lower cumulative emissions than the abrupt scenario even if there are no reductions in emission rate beyond 203if there are no reductions in emission rate beyond 2030.

If we compute the cumulative sum of the anthropogenic contribution to net global emission, we get the component of the observed increase in CO2 that is due to anthropogenic emissions, which is a steady linear trend rising at 1.5 ppmv per year.

Section 7.4.1.2 told us that if we kept on emitting CO2 and more - than tripled present cumulative CO2 emissions (to 2,000 GtC) we could then be the unhappy recipients of a similar quantity of CH4 although we would have to wait for it all to arrive — 1,000 to 100,000 years for potentially ~ 2,000 GtCH4, an equivilant of 50 «Shakhova events».