Sentences with phrase «if higher greenhouse gases»

One reason for being confident about there being much more uncertaintly than the 97 % concensus suggests is that there is nothing like a concensus, let alone proof, of what caused (and causes) the extreme natural variations in climate throughout geological time.This variation is well documented and almost certainly has a variety of underlying causes which are likely to be very different from C02 or other MM emissions even if higher greenhouse gases levels have often been present.

Not exact matches

The number of days each year above 95 ° Fahrenheit (35 ° Celsius) is expected to rise across the United States, and average summer temperatures will reach new heights if greenhouse gas emissions remain high.

If it is replaced by other farmers boosting their yields more than they otherwise would, spurred by higher prices, you may get a benefit because higher yields absorb more carbon (but it comes at some greenhouse gas costs from fertilizer use and the like).

The analysis by Yang and Jackson finds that if the gas produced by the new plants is used to generate electricity, the total lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions would be 36 percent to 82 percent higher than pulverized coal - fired power.

If Americans in the highest - impact group shifted their diets to align with the U.S. average — by consuming fewer overall calories and relying less on meat — the one - day greenhouse - gas emissions reduction would be equivalent to eliminating 661 million passenger - vehicle miles, according to the researchers.

In the midst of an unseasonably warm winter in the Pacific Northwest, a comparison of four publicly available climate projections has shown broad agreement that the region will become considerably warmer in the next century if greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere rise to the highest levels projected in the the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) «business - as - usual» scenario.

«If the true climate sensitivity really is as high as 5 degrees C -LSB-(9 degrees F)-RSB-, the only way our descendants will find that out is if they stubbornly hold greenhouse gas concentrations constant for centuries at our target stabilization level.&raquIf the true climate sensitivity really is as high as 5 degrees C -LSB-(9 degrees F)-RSB-, the only way our descendants will find that out is if they stubbornly hold greenhouse gas concentrations constant for centuries at our target stabilization level.&raquif they stubbornly hold greenhouse gas concentrations constant for centuries at our target stabilization level.»

If greenhouse gas emissions continue on their current trend, the rate of warming will reach 0.7 °F per decade and stay that high until at least 2100.

In 100 characters: California extreme fire risk days up to 6 times higher by century's end if greenhouse gases aren't cut

Projections based on 29 climate models suggest that the number of high wildfire potential days each year could increase by nearly 50 percent by 2050 if greenhouse gas emissions continue unabated.

If greenhouse gases were responsible for global temperature increases in recent decades, atmospheric physics require that higher levels of our atmosphere would show greater warming than lower levels.

If one is looking for real differences among mainstream scientists, they can be found on two fronts: the precise implications of those higher temperatures, and which technologies and policies offer the best solution to reducing, on a global scale, the emission of greenhouse gases.

Such research is needed for understanding future changes in cyclones and avoided impacts if we follow the Paris Agreement on climate change, rather than current, high greenhouse gas emission pathways.»

If we start out with a balanced system which contains frozen water at the poles, the mid to high latitudes begin to thaw, triggering soil greenhouse gas feedbacks (permafrost thaw and following oxic and anoxic sources add to the greenhouse gas budget), a chronic linear process (which helps to accelerate changes of the equilibrium state, reduces the ability of the atmosphere to break down greenhouse gases — less hydroxide radicals).

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.

If greenhouse gases were responsible for global temperature increases in recent decades, atmospheric physics require that higher levels of our atmosphere would show greater warming than lower levels.

If we want to understand methane (and greenhouse gas) emissions with high certainty sufficient for regulation, we would need an expanded network of observations.

On the other side, while there will undoubtedly be high costs to any serious attempt at mitigation, this would also require something like a global agreement (covering at least the rich world, India and China, and probably other states with large and currently poor populations) which would inevitably have to bring in issues other than greenhouse gas emissions — such as those you mention — if only because these states will say, reasonably enough, that they can not bring their populations on board without serious help in those other areas.

Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, the director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, said that if the buildup of greenhouse gases and its consequences pushed global temperatures 9 degrees Fahrenheit higher than today — well below the upper temperature range that scientists project could occur from global warming — Earth's population would be devastated.

If one is looking for real differences among mainstream scientists, they can be found on two fronts: the precise implications of those higher temperatures, and which technologies and policies offer the best solution to reducing, on a global scale, the emission of greenhouse gases.

There's no way out of it: if the greenhouse gas theory were correct and the climate models were really modelling the «real climate» then the high latitudes would be warming the fastest.

CO2 also becomes a more effective greenhouse gas at higher atmospheric pressures (even if super-imposed upon several more bars of a non-greenhouse gas like N2 would generate a much stronger GHE by increasing absorption away from line centers).

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 other study from Nature finds evidence that if greenhouse gas emissions remain high, the Earth will cross the two degree Celsius threshold by 2060.

Kevin Hamilton, who co-authored the report, warns: «If our model results prove to be representative of the real global climate, then climate is actually more sensitive to perturbations by greenhouse gases than current global models predict, and even the highest warming predictions would underestimate the real change we could see.»

Most worrisome, if humanity stays near its current path of greenhouse gas emissions, the IPCC warns with «high confidence» that «the combination of high temperature and humidity in some areas for parts of the year is projected to compromise normal human activities, including growing food or working outdoors.»

Can a case be made that the United States and other high - emitting nations have an ethical duty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions even if other nations do not do so?

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 terms of the implications for low carbon innovation, this is very important. Because if we just limit our our consideration of innovation for low carbon to high technology, not only are we setting ourselves for some pretty difficult tasks, we also exclude ourselves from all sorts of other possibilities which could have profound influence on a shift to a low carbon system. In terms of what we mean by low carbon definition, therefore, the «low carbon» bit does not just refer to more efficient use of greenhouse gases.

Yet, participants in the climate change disinformation machine often speak as if it is inappropriate to talk about duties to reduce greenhouse gases until science is capable of proving with high levels of certainty what actual damages will be.

If countries do not move fast enough to achieve zero carbon emissions or at least produce no more greenhouse gases than can be taken in by trees and the ocean, Figueres said the poorest of the poor will pay the highest price.

Our analysis found that the number of days with KBDI above 600 (a level at which the potential for wildfire is high) would increase significantly between now and 2050 in 10 of the western states if greenhouse gas emissions continue unabated.

Total energy - related CO2 emissions for developed countries (Annex I) were only 1.1 % higher than their 1990 level in 2000 and if other greenhouse gases and sinks are counted, these countries could have collectively achieved their goal of returning emissions to 1990 levels.

So, for example, if we go through a period of relative higher solar output, and less volcanic activity, relatively less cloudiness, and higher greenhouse gas levels, these would all tend to increase ocean heat content.

In other words, if these yield reductions resulting from greenhouse gas — induced climate change were superimposed on the yield reductions that might occur during a particularly dry period arising from the region's characteristic precipitation variability, they would be higher and comparable with the results from the Morocco National Communication.

Surely the hurdle for cosmic rays should, if anything, be higher as the science behind how greenhouse gases is well understood but the mechanism (apart from same vague theories about cloud seeding) for GCR is not?

And so the temperature change that the consensus view believes is likely if all of the greenhouse gases rise to 560 ppm carbon equivalent is somewhere between 2 °C and 4.5 °C with even higher temperatures possible.

This rise, though modest compared to what will happen if global temperatures and greenhouse gas levels remain at currently elevated levels or continue to ramp higher, is now enough to turn astronomical high tides into a notable flooding event.

(UNEP, 2010) UNEP concluded that if the highest ambitions of all countries associated with the Copenhagen Accord are implemented and supported, annual emissions of greenhouse gases could be cut, on average, by around 7 gigatons (Gt) of CO2 equivalent by 2020.

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.

Renewable energy can be used to replace some higher - carbon sources of energy in the power grid and achieve a reduction in total greenhouse gas emissions from power generation, even if not used to provide baseload power.

You are probably also aware already that water vapor is as much if not more of a so called greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide is and there is a lot of evaporating ocean water on the planet not to mention clouds and high tropical humidity because hot air provides added space in the atmosphere for water vapor gas to become a major component of air.

Transmitting power from SA to the eastern states would be a practicality, while perhaps progressively moving high consumption industries such as aluminium smelting from the mainland eastern states to WA could be considered if the wind resource is to be utilised and Australia's greenhouse gas production rates reduced.

The map (above) shows predicted changes in the annual number of days of extreme rainfall (defined as rainfall totals in excess of the historic 98th percentile) across the United States by 2041 - 2070 as compared to 1971 - 2000 if greenhouse gases continue to increase at a high rate (A2 scenario).

Bottom line is if there were no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere like on the moon, daytime high temperatures at the equator in the spring and fall would exceed the boiling point of water and of course nighttime temperatures would plunge far below freezing.

High emissions: If greenhouse gas emissions keep growing, however, sea - level rise gets even more drastic.

If the ocean current continues to weaken, it will likely take up even less CO2, leading to higher quantities of the greenhouse gas in the atmosphere and potentially worsening the effects of global warming, she said.

Modelling from the Met Office in a 2012 report for the Environment Agency suggests that climate change could raise sea levels in the area between 20 and 90 centimetres by the end of the century, and warns that eventual sea level rise could be much higher if greenhouse gas emissions are not cut.

That said, we pay to reduce greenhouse gases and other air pollution with higher energy bills, even if these reductions save us money, and transitions will be complicated.

If Alberta were a country, its per capita greenhouse gas emissions would be higher than any other country in the world.