Sentences with phrase «just atmospheric concentration»

There is no distinction between «old» and «new» CO2, just atmospheric concentration.

It also means that scientists and other experts are going to have to monitor measures other than just atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases to catch catastrophic climate change developing.

Not exact matches

Already, atmospheric concentrations of just CO2 have reached 400 ppm at times and all greenhouse gases put together are now at 430 ppm.

Just last month, the World Meteorological Organization reported that atmospheric CO2 concentrations are still rising at an unprecedented pace, despite the plateau in emissions over the last few years (Climatewire, Oct. 31).

Figuring out just how long the continent has been a barren, cold desert of ice can give clues as to how Antarctica responded to the effects of past climates and can perhaps also indicate what to expect there in the future as Earth's atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide grows.

«Global climate change involves not just a warming planet, but also increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations and changes in rainfall,» said lead author Lauren Smith - Ramesh, a postdoctoral fellow at NIMBioS.

This implies that most CO2 is removed from the atmosphere within about 4 years, but it isn't, it is mostly just replaced by CO2 from natural sources, which doesn't change 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.

I would just add to what Zanna said, that the atmospheric CO2 concentration is about 390 ppm as of January 2011.

The approximately 20 - year lag (between atmospheric CO2 concentration change and reaching equilibrium temperature) is an emerging property (just like sensitivity) of the global climate system in the GCM models used in the paper I linked to above, if I understood it correctly.

And not just irrelevant — it becomes plain wrong when that 5 % number is then misunderstood as the human contribution to the atmospheric CO2 concentration.

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.

We just need to reduce them to meet the terrestrial removal, which increase with increasing atmospheric concentrations.

Climate change mitigation and adaptation policies discussions go way beyond discussing just CO2 atmospheric concentration numbers.

As far as Hansen's Scenario A, B, C forecasts back in the 80s, he could have just dusted off the model in 2005, plugged in the greenhouse emissions, volcanic eruptions, atmospheric component concentrations, etc..

The convective heat / mass transfer due to water dwarfs any radiative forcing; besides — just on optical depth alone, any re-radiated LWIR from atmospheric CO2 would be IMMEDIATELY absorbed by the much higher concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere (aka clouds!)

As the Trump administration charges forward with its war on science by canceling a «crucial» carbon monitoring system at NASA, scientists and climate experts are sounding alarms over atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) that just surpassed a «troubling» threshold for the first time in human history.

Is the argument that CO2 levels relate to temperature, and in fact if there were no human emissions then the «environment» would not be a sink and in fact would be a source... as the atmospheric concs are driven by temps and it is just a coincidence that the anthropogenic emissions are greater than the increase in atmospheric concentrations?

Doesn't this just confirm that anthropogenic emissions are not significant to atmospheric concentrations of C02?

A.) If I wanted to get a rough estimate of the equilibrium warming response to a tripling of the preindustrial atmospheric concentration of CO2eq (so 3 x 280 CO2eq ppm), I would just take my best sensitivity - per - doubling estimate on the bottom bar and multiply it by 1.5?

Plus the concern is not just with contributions to atmospheric concentrations.

Although the atmospheric CO2 concentration has been rising for decades, we are now only just starting to feel the effects of a warming climate, such as melting glaciers, stronger heat waves and more violent storms.

This is the main reason that I think projections of extreme atmospheric concentrations (say > 650 PPM) are implausible; there just is not enough economically recoverable fossil fuel available to maintain 650 PPM in the atmosphere for very long, never mind go much over 650 PPM.

All climate protection projects share the same goal of reducing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, but high quality projects are capable of doing much more than just combating climate change.

Despite a half century of climate change that has significantly affected temperature and precipitation patterns and has already had widespread ecological and hydrological impacts, and despite a near certainty that the United States will experience at least as much climate change in the coming decades, just as a result of the current atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, those organizations in the public and private sectors that are most at risk, that are making long - term investments and commitments, and that have the planning, forecasting and institutional capacity to adapt, have not yet done so.

One can make this quite a bit more complicated, because as you correctly note the magnitude of the gross fluxes (e.g., natural sinks) isn't independent of the atmospheric concentration, so one can't just say that if we removed all human emissions the net natural flux would still be negative and atmospheric CO2 would be decreasing.

For instance, about half the total rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration has occurred in just the last 30 years — and of all the global life - support systems, the carbon cycle is closest to no - return.

It's not just the isotopic signature, or the decline of atmospheric oxygen concentrations — which is the signature of the source of the CO2 being combustion... It's also this simple mass balance argument.

He also seems to have missed the recent revelation that what really matters to climate is the total ultimate slug of emitted CO2, implying that unfettered emission today dooms us to more drastic cuts in the future or a higher ultimate atmospheric CO2 concentration, which will persist not just for «possibly centuries», but almost certainly for millennia.

However, when someone calls CO2 a pollutant just because we are changing the atmospheric concentration, and not realizing the benefits therein, I have to object.

They see climate change — driven by rising concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide, in turn fuelled by ever - greater fossil fuel combustion — as an emerging «mega-disturbance»: the bringer of not just longer and hotter droughts but of a new class of affliction, the unprecedented «global - change - type drought».

Currently, atmospheric concentrations are just in the process of firmly crossing the 400 parts per million threshold.