Sentences with phrase «more cumulative carbon emissions»

Not exact matches

Even the 350 - ppm limit for carbon dioxide is «questionable,» says physicist Myles Allen of the Climate Dynamics Group at the University of Oxford, and focusing instead on keeping cumulative emissions below one trillion metric tons might make more sense, which would mean humanity has already used up more than half of its overall emissions budget.

His work has shown that limiting cumulative emissions of carbon dioxide may be a more robust approach to climate change mitigation policy than attempting to define a «safe» stabilization level for atmospheric greenhouse gases.

In other words — by 2014 we'd used more of the carbon budget than any of the RCPs had anticipated and if we are not confident that the real world is cooler than the models at this level of cumulative emissions, this means that available emissions for 1.5 degrees should decrease proportionately.

Holding concentrations or temperature (more remotely) to a particular target therefore means limiting cumulative emissions of, say, carbon over time... a limited amount of time if we are talking about an iterative approach, and over a long period of time if we are talking about reducing the likelihood of some very nasty consequences well after we (but not our grandchildren — if we are lucky enough to have some) are gone.

This is a serious problem in itself, but a more fundamental problem with the emission budget concept seems to be more - or-less unexplored: Do cumulative carbon emission budgets have a sound scientific foundation?

Armed with our model ensemble projection, a temperature limit (2 °C), exceedance likelihood (33 %) and our «one model, one vote» ensemble interpretation, we find the cumulative carbon emission where approximately 33 % of our modeled realizations have warmed more than 2 °C.

They could cut cumulative carbon dioxide emissions by 34 billion metric tons, more than the total emissions from fossil fuels in this country over six years.

It states that to stand a good chance (a probability of 66 percent or more) of limiting warming to less than 2 °C since the mid-19th century will require cumulative CO2 emissions from all anthropogenic sources to stay under 800 gigatons of carbon.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7242/abs/nature08019.html Setting a long - term cumulative carbon limit is more robust and has a more predictable effect than trying to control emission rates.

Each molecule of carbon dioxide, which is the most important long - lived manmade greenhouse gas, can remain in the atmosphere for as many as 1,000 years, making it more urgent to cut emissions in the near future, or face continued cumulative warming for centuries to come.