Sentences with phrase «if global carbon emissions»

A previous study by many of the same authors found that if global carbon emissions aren't curbed, extreme La Niña events could become more frequent in the 21st century — up from once every 23 years to once every 13 years.

Not exact matches

«If we're to keep global temperatures from rising to dangerous levels, we need to drastically reduce emissions and greatly increase forests» ability to absorb and store carbon.»

Even if the ambitious targets of the world's biggest economies are met, and internal combustion engines give way to electric or other zero - emission vehicles by 2040, the total impact on global carbon dioxide emissions will be minimal, according to a new study released Tuesday.

And if the final data does end up showing a drop in global carbon emissions, it will be the first time Co2 levels have dropped during a period of strong economic growth.

Earlier this year researchers calculated that if more people went meat free then global carbon emissions could fall by 63 per cent and $ 1 trillion could be saved on the global health bill, rising to $ 30 trillion factoring in lives saved.

If carbon emissions continue on their current trajectory, with global temperatures rising by 2.6 C to 4.8 °C by 2100, applications could increase by 188 percent, leading to an extra 660,000 applications filed each year.

He also models the global warming that would occur if concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere were to be doubled (due to increases in carbon dioxide and methane emissions from dragons and the excessive use of wildfire).

Imagine if the world's two largest polluters unilaterally decide to cut emissions of carbon dioxide, the ubiquitous gas responsible for the bulk of global warming.

Researchers estimate that if all human - related deforestation of the tropics were to stop, the forests could absorb more carbon than at present, equivalent to one - fifth of global emissions.

If nations hit their reduction targets, global carbon dioxide emissions would level off, even as electricity demand continues to rise.

In their latest paper, published in the February issue of Nature Geoscience, Dr Philip Goodwin from the University of Southampton and Professor Ric Williams from the University of Liverpool have projected that if immediate action isn't taken, Earth's global average temperature is likely to rise to 1.5 °C above the period before the industrial revolution within the next 17 - 18 years, and to 2.0 °C in 35 - 41 years respectively if the carbon emission rate remains at its present - day value.

«We show that even if deforestation had completely halted in 2010, time lags ensured there would still be a carbon emissions debt equivalent to five to ten years of global deforestation and an extinction debt of more than 140 bird, mammal, and amphibian forest - specific species, which, if paid, would increase the number of 20th century extinctions in these groups by 120 percent,» says Isabel Rosa (@isamdr86) of the Imperial College of London.

«If ozone continues to increase, vegetation will take up less and less of our carbon dioxide emissions, which will leave more CO2 in the atmosphere, adding to global warming,» Sitch says.

If the U.S. establishes a federal trading system in response, the scale of U.S. emissions trading could supplant the dominance of the E.U. in the budding global carbon market.

If the world ever does reach an accord to cap CO2 emissions, the PurGen model might go global and the carbon might go back underground.

Global average temperatures will rise at least 4 °C by 2100 and potentially more than 8 °C by 2200 if carbon dioxide emissions are not reduced according to new research published in Nature.

Global average temperatures will rise at least 4 degrees C by 2100 and potentially more than 8 degrees C by 2200 if carbon dioxide emissions are not reduced, according to new research.

Rosenthal says that if carbon dioxide emissions become taxed in the future due to continuing concerns about global warming, his solar - driven catalyst for making synthetic fuel will compete even better economically with fossil fuels.

According to Flannery, even if we reduce our carbon dioxide emissions by 70 percent by 2050, average global temperatures will increase between two and nine degrees by 2100.

The team compared their results to four inventories of global carbon emissions to see if the same trend held.

A new report published today by researchers from Imperial College London and the University of Sheffield shows that global carbon emissions could be cut by one gigatonne per year (3 % of global emissions) in less than five years if other countries followed the same strategy.

«If we are serious about climate change, the 10 per cent of the global population responsible for 50 per cent of total emissions need to make deep and immediate cuts in their use of energy — and hence their carbon emissions,» says Anderson.

The jist of this is that we must NOT suddenly switch off carbon / sulphur producing industries over the planet but instead we must first dramatically reduce CO2 emissions from every conceivable source, then gradually tackle coal / fossil fuel sources to smoothly remove the soot from the air to prevent a sudden leap in average global temps which if it is indeed 2.75 C as the UNEP predicts will permanently destroy the climates ability to regulate itself and lead to catastrophic changes on the land and sea.

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.

When asked if Climeworks is participating in a morally hazardous climate strategy, Gebald said that scientists are certain that global warming can only be addressed if global carbon dioxide emissions drop to zero.

However, if we choose a different path — if we act aggressively to both adapt to the changing climate and to mitigate future impacts by reducing carbon emissions — we can significantly reduce our exposure to the worst economic risks from climate change, and also demonstrate global leadership on climate.

It would be hard to find an ocean expert who does not agree that global carbon dioxide emissions must be brought under control — and quickly — if we are to prevent the wholesale deterioration of our oceans.

The climate responds slowly to changes in CO2 levels, so even if all carbon emissions stopped today, global temperatures would keep rising and other climate impacts would continue to be felt for decades or centuries to come.

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.

If human - caused climate change is to be slowed enough to avert the worst consequences of global warming, carbon dioxide emissions from coal - fired power plants and other pollutants will have to be captured and injected deep into the ground to prevent them from being released into the atmosphere.

Because everyone in this global community will be affected by climate change, it will be for our own benefit if we manage to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in such a way that global warming is limited to less than 2 degrees Celsius», says Prof. Ulf Riebesell, marine biologist at GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel and coordinator of BIOACID.

* Scientists from the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology have calculated that if current carbon dioxide emission trends continue, by mid-century 98 % of present - day reef habitats will be bathed in water too acidic for reef growth.

If we are in a global warming crisis today, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions and all other government proposals and taxes would have a negligible effect on global climate!

, makes it crystal clear, in quantified terms, that the emissions of carbon dioxide from burning coal are a major part of the problem and need to be addressed if we are to make the necessary changes to address global warming.

Last week I posted a «Your Dot» contribution from Raymond T. Pierrehumbert, a University of Chicago climate scientist concerned that policy makers and the public keep in mind the primacy of carbon dioxide emissions if they are serious about limiting the chances of propelling disruptive human - driven global warming.

Researchers at Stanford University who closely track China's power sector, coal use, and carbon dioxide emissions have done an initial rough projection and foresee China possibly emitting somewhere between 1.9 and 2.6 billion tons less carbon dioxide from 2008 to 2010 than it would have under «business as usual» if current bearish trends for the global economy hold up.

Per a recent study by the Center for Global Development, if all the rich countries like Canada stopped all their emissions tomorrow, «rising carbon emissions from developing countries would threaten the world with severe climate change within a single generation».

And if decreasing carbon emissions turns out not to affect global temperatures, at least it will free us from petroleum dependency and clear up the air.

If humanity gets truly serious about emissions reduction — and by serious I mean «World War II serious» in both scale and urgency — we could go to near - zero global emissions in, say, two decades and then quickly go carbon negative.

If it is China, then all the more reason to support China's low - carbon growth policies, to demand more nuclear / hydro / CCS / wind etc and to work as hard as possible at crafting a truly global emissions treaty that will include targets of some sort for all major emitters.

In the report released today by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world's top scientists warned that global warming is unequivocally man - made and will become irreversible if we do not act now to reduce the amount of carbon emissions released into the atmosphere.

IF carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels only stayed in the atmosphere a few years, say five years, then there may not be quite the urgency currently associated with anthropogenic global warming.

The other thing that I think is really important to watch is the possibility of a climate deal with China, and that could be really, really important, because you've basically got the two climate change superpowers finally coming together on this, and if they created some kind of an agreement to limit emissions, even that could have the de facto effect of creating a global carbon price.

Tanaka said concerns about the safety of nuclear energy, if they derailed nuclear power projects, would also hurt efforts to limit carbon emissions and contain global warming.

The IPCC estimates that global investment in low carbon energy sources will need to increase by $ 147 billion a year if the world is going to cut emissions enough to prevent warming of more than two degrees.

The pledge, if successfully implemented, would reduce global emissions by between 4.5 billion and 8.8 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide each year, and it came with a promise of $ 1 billion in funding.

One recent study found that the average global temperature would rise another 3.2 ° by the end of the century even if human carbon emissions dropped to zero tomorrow, a scenario that is, of course, extremely unlikely.

Many of the world's leading scientists believe that increased emissions of carbon dioxide since the industrial revolution have led to increased global temperatures and if left unchecked, they threaten to wreak havoc on Earth.

If we don't dramatically reduce our carbon emissions in the next two decades, the average global temperature is likely to rise by more than 2 ˚C.

If the U.K. sold its shale gas both domestically and abroad to replace coal, it could reduce local air pollution significantly and reduce global carbon emissions by 170 megatons.