Sentences with phrase «lower atmospheric emissions»
They reduce power consumption and have lower atmospheric emissions and wastes than the conventional breweries.
https://www.foodprocessing-technology.com/ Not exact matches
Recall that even if we keep atmospheric emissions below 450ppm, we still have only lowered the chance of catastrophic climate change to below 50 % — not eliminated it (Source: IPCC Fourth Assessment).
• Lower emissions, with better control of NOx and HC throughout the range of engine operating speeds, reducing atmospheric pollution.
It leaves only a fairly small amount of warming attributable to CO2 emissions and therefore indicates a low sensitivity to increased atmospheric CO2.
According to a conversation I had with Hansen, the reason atmospheric concentration stabilizes is that the ocean sink, that is currently sinking about half of our CO2 emissions, keeps sinking CO2 at around that level so that as we lower emissions at 3 % / year (about 50 % in 20 years) the oceans are sinking most of our emissions and, therefore, keeping atmospheric concentrations stable.
If Mackay means by this that only a small amount of the ~ 39 % increase in atmospheric CO2 since «pre-industrial» times is directly attributable to human CO2 emissions, I'd say this sounds much too low (but I have not asked Mackay whether or not that is what he had in mind and, if so, what his basis is).
It certainly would be an interesting experiment to throttle back all GHG emissions to a sufficiently low level at which atmospheric concentrations do stabilise.
By 2100, global atmospheric CO2 levels reach 550 and 970 ppm under the lower and higher emissions scenarios, respectively.
For the near future the uncertainty in climate prediction justifies choosing polices that guide us towards net negative emissions as quickly as possible and the stabilization of atmospheric greenhouse gases at levels significantly lower than today.
As has been discussed at this site previously, no matter how much people (or certain climate scientists) fear additional atmospheric CO2, humans are not going to lower their total emissions for several decades.
CO2 mitigation shouldn't even be on the list of things that need to be done until it can be demonstrated that the known benefits of higher atmospheric CO2, as well as the lower cost of energy production when CO2 emission is not subject to constraint, are outweighed by the imagined negatives.
Nations collectively to begin to reduce sharply global atmospheric emissions of greenhouse gases and absorbing aerosols, with the goal of urgently halting their accumulation in the atmosphere and holding atmospheric levels at their lowest practicable value;
Trenberth's 40 W / m ^ 2 escape via the atmospheric window, also seems too low to me; implying almost complete absorption of the surface emission by the atmosphere whereas spectral plots would seem to allow capture of a much smaller fraction of the total energy.
Because the isotopic signatures measured in the study are lower than the values typically entered into global climate change models, the results of this study suggest the models may be underestimating the change to atmospheric carbon - 13 for each simulated emissions scenario.
These NCA emissions directly affect particle concentrations and human exposure to nanosized aerosol in urban areas, and potentially may act as nanosized condensation nuclei for the condensation of atmospheric low - volatile organic compounds.
The interesting thing is that the current absolute limit on net anthropogenic greenhouse emissions should be a low or probably even negative number designed to plateau and then reverse the atmospheric CO2 concentration back to pre-industrial levels over an agreed reasonable time span.
With the atmospheric concentrations of GHGs thus unlikely to stabilize in this century (even for the low SRES scenario) without major policy changes, from an emissions perspective, we are not on track for meeting the objectives of UNFCCC Article 2.
A world with a relatively low climate sensitivity — say in the range of 2 C — but with high emissions and with atmospheric concentrations three to four times those of pre-industrial levels is still probably a far different planet than the one we humans have become accustomed to.
Mitigation strategies focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions in order to lower atmospheric carbon levels.
What they really mean is that if the human input were lower then the atmospheric level would be lower (in fact the simple mass - balance argument seems to suggest that CO2 would decline if human emissions were zeroed).
Increased generation from Victoria's brown coal plants with their relatively low thermal efficiencies has also lowered the average national thermal efficiency of power generation, leading to a corresponding rise in atmospheric emissions.
Most of the sampling periods used to generate the N2O emissions from fertilizers in Canada were less than one year; therefore, the estimate of total annual atmospheric emissions might be low.
These range from the low - end, where atmospheric CO2 concentration peaks and then falls during this century (RCP2.6), to the high - end, with no action to reduce global emissions (RCP8.5).
That emitted energy could have arrived from lower atmosphere CO2 emissions, or from atmospheric lapse type convection, or possibly from the tops of thunderstorms.
On May 2, 2009, The Earth Institute at Columbia University, the MA students in Columbia's Climate and Society Masters Program and Dr. James Hansen will host their first 350 Conference focusing specifically on the idea that we have to get our current atmospheric levels of 385 parts per million (ppm) carbon dioxide emissions down to at least 350 ppm (or lower).
I propose the following bet on LongBets: 1 point for closest to atmospheric methane concentration, 1 point for closest to CO2 emissions, 1 point for closest to atmospheric CO2 concentration, and 3 points for closest to (satellite - measured) lower tropospheric temperature.
It does make more sense that a long period of atmospheric cooling would lead to a lowering of sea level, but that correlation has NOTHING to do with CO2 emissions, which were skyrocketing while global temperatures either fell or remained steady.