Not exact matches
We collectively need to demand that there is no acceptable response to climate change other than strong emission reductions, ensuring that
atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are returned to 350ppm levels,
global temperature rise is
kept (at the maximum) 2 °C and, even better, 1.5 °C — to do that, as was emphasized on numerous occasions, we need a F.A.B. climate deal: Fair, Ambitious, and (perhaps most importantly) Binding.
After all most climatologists have been calling for the stabilization of
atmospheric CO2e 450 ppm or less,
keeping the
global temperature increase at about 2 °C above pre-industrial levels.
United Nations negotiators struggle to get a
global agreement for reducing the world's CO2 emissions, which would stabilise
atmospheric CO2 level and
keep the
temperature rise below 2 °C.
Yet on these sites (and in the media, and even by a few semi related scientists who kinda
keep an eye on the issue or are semi involved) treat it as if it is some sort of both immediate, and linear, contemporaneous correlation between increased lower level
atmospheric re radiation, and increased (or changed)
global ambient air
temperatures, which is absurd, and belies any real deep understanding of the actual issue.
However, to
keep temperature rise limited to 1.5 C to 2C we need
global atmospheric concentrations to be held well below 550ppm, which obviously requires substantially deeper and more costly levels of mitigation.
Stabilisation of
atmospheric greenhouse gases below about 400 ppm CO2 equivalent is required to
keep the
global temperature increase likely less than 2ºC above pre-industrial
temperature (Knutti et al., 2005).2
MAR at 173:
Global average
temperature is an upward sticky number and the trend of
atmospheric CO2 will
keep it on the upward trend.