Sentences with phrase «limiting the warming caused»

Following these informal discussions, delegates agreed on text stating that limiting the warming caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions alone with a probability range of greater than 33 %, 50 %, and 66 %, to less than 2ºC since the period 1861 - 1880, will require cumulative CO2 emissions from all anthropogenic sources to stay between 0 and about 1560 GtC, 0 and about 1210 GtC, and 0 and about 1000 GtC.

Limiting the warming caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions alone with a probability of > 33 %, > 50 %, and > 66 % to less than 2 °C since the period 1861 — 1880, will require cumulative CO2 emissions from all anthropogenic sources to stay between 0 and about 1570 GtC (5760 GtCO2), 0 and about 1210 GtC (4440 GtCO2), and 0 and about 1000 GtC (3670 GtCO2) since that period, respectively.

Not exact matches

More than 170 countries agreed early Saturday morning to limit emissions of key climate change - causing pollutants found in air conditioners, a significant step in the international effort to keep global warming from reaching catastrophic levels.

However — and this is the important part — outside causes such as (but not limited to) these do not account for the amount of global warming we have seen.

Again, green groups and scientists have criticized the commission's 40 % proposal as insufficient to limit global warming to a temperature increase of 2ºC — which is widely considered as the threshold above which climate change would cause severe effects; Greenpeace, for instance, had hoped for a 55 % reduction.

The sense at the meeting was that drastic emissions cuts are the best way to limit the catastrophic droughts and sea - level rises that global warming is expected to cause.

The deal to limit global warming to 1.5 °C has no chance of success unless aviation and shipping pay for the pollution they cause

The ambitious goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees compared to pre-industrial levels may be compromised merely due to the warming caused by the reduction of fine emission particles.

Although the absorption of atmospheric CO2 by the ocean helps limit climate warming, it also changes seawater chemistry and causes ocean acidification.

You don't have to limit yourselves and wear them during the warm months only cause there are plenty of ways to rock the floral pattern in winter too.

The poles being white reflect heat which is why its critical that we do nt melt the poles more or have black roads) this * is * causing more gloabal warming, white roads would be COOL literally helping to act like the poles... for those of you that understand this PLEASE help promote this idea and you can help now by coating your old tarmac drive with bonded white chippings, start a business doing it, easy cheap startup, loads of demand, you can make as much money doing this as you like, the demand is immense and will grow as the idea catches on) Going back to our oil scenario: These pipelines carry oil to fuel dirty inefficient engines machines that for their 15 year lifespan spew poison gases into our limited atmosphere.

Although incidents of the Plague have been limited predominantly to the southwestern region of the country in recent years, a warmer climate could cause that to change.

Clearly atmospheric warming has multiple causes, including CO2 and solar changes, geothermal energy and forest fires etc and all can be at the same time, but research shows solar changes have limited effect, and CO2 is dominating in recent decades and will continue to dominate.

Ultimately, there is limited value in debating whether human - driven warming has caused the uncloaking of any particular Arctic island, the retreat of a snowfield atop any single mountain — even one as charismatic as Kilimanjaro — or the breakup of a particular ice shelf in Antarctica, or any other regional anomaly.

However, I've never seen a single media article in any U.S. press outlet that covered these issues — the large - scale evidence for global warming (melting glaciers, warming poles, shrinking sea ice, ocean temperatures) to the local scale (more intense hurricanes, more intense precipitation, more frequent droughts and heat waves) while also discussing the real causes (fossil fuels and deforestation) and the real solutions (replacement of fossil fuels with renewables, limiting deforestation, and halting the use of fossil fuels, especially coal and oil.)

Keep in mind that the IEA's «450 Scenario» is intended to limit warming to 2 °C — even though we can plainly see that the warming that has already occurred is sufficient to cause far worse effects than scientists imagined possible only a few years ago, and we have every reason to believe that 2 °C will be truly catastrophic.

How can someone go beyond the causes of either shuttle crash and question the ability of NASA or any equivalent organization to function effectively, yet simply accept that since The Limits to Growth predicted a crash due to resources by 2000 and that didn't happen, global warming is bogus?

Warming must occur below the tropopause to increase the net LW flux out of the tropopause to balance the tropopause - level forcing; there is some feedback at that point as the stratosphere is «forced» by the fraction of that increase which it absorbs, and a fraction of that is transfered back to the tropopause level — for an optically thick stratosphere that could be significant, but I think it may be minor for the Earth as it is (while CO2 optical thickness of the stratosphere alone is large near the center of the band, most of the wavelengths in which the stratosphere is not transparent have a more moderate optical thickness on the order of 1 (mainly from stratospheric water vapor; stratospheric ozone makes a contribution over a narrow wavelength band, reaching somewhat larger optical thickness than stratospheric water vapor)(in the limit of an optically thin stratosphere at most wavelengths where the stratosphere is not transparent, changes in the net flux out of the stratosphere caused by stratospheric warming or cooling will tend to be evenly split between upward at TOA and downward at the tropopause; with greater optically thickness over a larger fraction of optically - significant wavelengths, the distribution of warming or cooling within the stratosphere will affect how such a change is distributed, and it would even be possible for stratospheric adjustment to have opposite effects on the downward flux at the tropopause and the upward flux aWarming must occur below the tropopause to increase the net LW flux out of the tropopause to balance the tropopause - level forcing; there is some feedback at that point as the stratosphere is «forced» by the fraction of that increase which it absorbs, and a fraction of that is transfered back to the tropopause level — for an optically thick stratosphere that could be significant, but I think it may be minor for the Earth as it is (while CO2 optical thickness of the stratosphere alone is large near the center of the band, most of the wavelengths in which the stratosphere is not transparent have a more moderate optical thickness on the order of 1 (mainly from stratospheric water vapor; stratospheric ozone makes a contribution over a narrow wavelength band, reaching somewhat larger optical thickness than stratospheric water vapor)(in the limit of an optically thin stratosphere at most wavelengths where the stratosphere is not transparent, changes in the net flux out of the stratosphere caused by stratospheric warming or cooling will tend to be evenly split between upward at TOA and downward at the tropopause; with greater optically thickness over a larger fraction of optically - significant wavelengths, the distribution of warming or cooling within the stratosphere will affect how such a change is distributed, and it would even be possible for stratospheric adjustment to have opposite effects on the downward flux at the tropopause and the upward flux awarming or cooling will tend to be evenly split between upward at TOA and downward at the tropopause; with greater optically thickness over a larger fraction of optically - significant wavelengths, the distribution of warming or cooling within the stratosphere will affect how such a change is distributed, and it would even be possible for stratospheric adjustment to have opposite effects on the downward flux at the tropopause and the upward flux awarming or cooling within the stratosphere will affect how such a change is distributed, and it would even be possible for stratospheric adjustment to have opposite effects on the downward flux at the tropopause and the upward flux at TOA).

[UPDATE] After visiting various research buildings, he gave a pep talk on the energy revolution he said was vital if the United States and the world are to avoid conflicts over limited supplies of oil and eventual disruptive impacts from human - caused global warming.

A central dispute was over how scientists can best discuss risks and responses related to inherent, and dangerous, extremes of climate in a world increasingly fixated on how to limit global warming caused by human activity.

Since the «complete list of things caused by global warming» now exceeds 600 (see our «Chilled By The Heat» editorial, Dec. 13), there would be few if any limits on the U.N.'s ability to move riches from countries that have created and earned them to those that have done neither.

Plus the whole idea of limiting post-industrial warming to 2.0 or 1.5 degrees more or less assumes that all of the warming is human caused.

To limit the long - term risks of sea level rise and the costs of adapting to it, we must work toward deep reductions in the global warming emissions that are the primary cause of rising sea levels.

Although a libertarian might well agree that CO2 absorbs / scatters IR radiation, and that this will produce a warming effect, and agree that this effect could cause problems, and could even agree that it requires the intervention of some agency, he doesn't have to agree with Read that this represents either a global catastrophe in the making, or a palpable «limit to growth».

I am fairly confident the report will not mention the Pacific Centennial Oscillation, LIA recovery, NH land amplification, the stratospheric warming event cycles, the less publicized post 2009 proxy reconstructions, which all combined can barely push the «main cause» limit, because with the playing field shifted completely away from the meat of the debate CO2 forcing.

Will McCain's efforts to demonstrate his green credentials by supporting policies designed to limit carbon emissions cause the Republican Party to re-evaluate its current stance toward global warming?

If global warming is real and significant and caused by humans burning oil, it seems to have a natural limit to the amount of damage that can be done (i.e., the amount of readily obtainable oil).

Whether or not we are causing global warming is irrelevant to whether or not we should limit pollution, it is just used as a distraction and crux for major energy companies and industries that have the entire republican party and those that worship it in their pocket.

The UNFCCC protocol defines (declares) the problem to be manmade greenhouse gases (mainly CO2) and those are the primary cause of global warming... and furthermore that uncertainty should not be a reason to not take preventative measures to limit manmade causes.

Final Text: The headline message to the section states that continued GHG emissions will cause further warming and changes in all components of the climate system, and that limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of GHG emissions.

Without some handle on the extent of these it would be folly to assume the suggested limit to the warming caused by burning of all our fossil fuels.

«We find that even when applied continuously at scales as large as currently deemed possible, all methods are, individually, either relatively ineffective with limited warming reductions, or they have potentially severe side effects and can not be stopped without causing rapid climate change,» the authors write.

The climate change limit set by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) at 1.5 C is near to be being broken as temperatures still continue to soar high causing global warming.

But this assumes that all the warming was caused by CO2 so, although it can only reflect the transient climate sensitivity, it acts as an upper limit on that.

Even if natural gas combustion creates approaching 50 percent less CO2 equivalent per unit of energy produced, an amount which is well beyond best case on ghg emission reductions, it will not create the much greater emissions reductions necessary in the next 30 years to give any hope of limiting warming from exceeding levels that will cause catastrophic impacts.

To fully understand the nature of the harm caused by this delay it is necessary to understand the policy implications of a «carbon budget» that must limit global emissions to avoid dangerous warming levels..

Should a developed nation such as the United States which has much higher historical and per capita emissions than other nations be able to justify its refusal to reduce its ghg emissions to its fair share of safe global emissions on the basis of scientific uncertainty, given that if the mainstream science is correct, the world is rapidly running out of time to prevent warming above 2 degrees C, a temperature limit which if exceeded may cause rapid, non-linear climate change.

Although there is considerable scientific evidence that limiting warming to 1.5 degrees C is necessary to prevent very dangerous warming, a fact implicit in the recent Paris Agreement in which nations agreed to work to keep warming as close as possible from exceeding 1.5 degrees C additional warming, if the international community seeks to limit warming to 2 degrees C it must assure that global emissions do not exceed the number of tons of CO2 emissions that will raise atmospheric concentrations to levels that will cause warming of 2 degrees C.

b. All nations agreed to limit the increase in global average temperatures to «well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels» — the level beyond which scientists believe the Earth will likely begin to experience rapid global warming and to «pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels», a warming amount which may also cause serious global harms particularly to many poor, vulnerable nations.

Gerald Bond found evidence of cosmogenic isotope changes at each of a long series of warming followed by cooling events (he has able to track 25 events through current interglacial Holocene and into the last glacial period, at which point he reached the limit of the range of the proxy analysis technique) which indicates a solar magnetic cycle change caused the warming followed by cooling cycle.

Because ice is light - coloured and reflective, a large proportion of the sunlight that hits it is bounced back to space, which limits the amount of warming it causes.

Years earlier, one climate researcher at the company, Henry Shaw, had called management's attention to a key conclusion of a landmark National Academy of Sciences report: global warming caused by carbon dioxide emissions, not a scarcity of supply, would likely set the ultimate limit on the use of fossil fuels.

Although the challenge of achieving sufficient global greenhouse gas emissions to prevent 2 °C is extraordinarily daunting, as we have explained above a 2 °C warming limit may not prevent catastrophic harm because temperature increases more than 1 °C may cause great harm.

For example, reductions in seasonal sea ice cover and higher surface temperatures may open up new habitat in polar regions for some important fish species, such as cod, herring, and pollock.128 However, continued presence of cold bottom - water temperatures on the Alaskan continental shelf could limit northward migration into the northern Bering Sea and Chukchi Sea off northwestern Alaska.129, 130 In addition, warming may cause reductions in the abundance of some species, such as pollock, in their current ranges in the Bering Sea131and reduce the health of juvenile sockeye salmon, potentially resulting in decreased overwinter survival.132 If ocean warming continues, it is unlikely that current fishing pressure on pollock can be sustained.133 Higher temperatures are also likely to increase the frequency of early Chinook salmon migrations, making management of the fishery by multiple user groups more challenging.134

Even if global warming is limited to 1.5 degrees Celcius, we estimate that the associated increased rainfall would cause river flooding affecting one to two million people in Bangladesh, over five million in India, and over 10 million in China.»

Mr. Bush and many in his cabinet, who discussed the subject at length on Tuesday, have been trying to hammer out a proposal on limiting the pollutants that cause global warming.

Though observational data is limited on the links between climate change and dengue risk in Hawaii, future climate scenarios predict warmer temperatures and wetter summers in Hawaii over the next 25 year, which will cause an expansion of mosquito habitat and potential dengue risk areas.

The best estimate from the best science is that people can limit warming from human - caused carbon pollution to less than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius)-- if society acts now.

One suggestion is that a warmer climate would have increased precipitation efficiency, causing more moisture to rain out, with less detrainment and a smaller area of upper - level cloud cover, limiting the positive longwave forcing (Lindzen et al. 2001).

But Mr. Gillis overlooks historical evidence that strongly supports Lindzen's position that the climate has negative feedbacks that will limit human - caused global warming.