Sentences with phrase «net anthropogenic emissions»

Net anthropogenic emission = +1 unit 2.

Not exact matches

These approaches, however, do not account for carbon cycle feedbacks and therefore do not fully represent the net response of the Earth system to anthropogenic CO (2) emissions.

Maybe, and a good point to bear in mind, but the possibilities are constrained by economic inertia — I'd expect the change to be distributed over time (except when anthropogenic net emissions do approach zero — then there might be a slam into the zero line, and if there is not much sequestration, it would stop changing around that time).

We are more confident than ever that the globe will warm up more, and faster, for a few decades beyond the time when serious changes in anthropogenic net emissions start.

But you assert: «as long as the increase in the atmosphere is only halve the emissions, there can't be any other (net) source, as nature as a whole acts as a sink «And it is important to note that in this assertion, when you say «the emissions» you mean «only the anthropogenic emissions».

Your assertion is mathematically false because the natural emissions and the natural sequestrations may both be changing and the effect of their net change could be much greater than the anthropogenic emission.

Air capture for negative net CO2 emissions would follow the decarbonization of our electricity system and other large anthropogenic point sources and assumes abundant and inexpensive non-carbon energy sources.

Regarding text on CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion and cement production in 2011, and anthropogenic net CO2 emissions from land - use change throughout the past decade, Saudi Arabia proposed also discussing other gases, sectors and sources, and addressing confidence levels and representative timeframes.

What of course Nurse and Bindschadler did was to compare gross anthropogenic emissions with net natural emissions.

The capacity of the sink increases in proportion to anthropogenic production increase so the net accumulation is always exactly half of anthro emission.

And for this the researchers have an explanation — and a funny way of expressing that: the drop from El Niño to La Niña, together with declining solar insulation caused the cooling, because «rapid growth in short - lived sulphur emissions partially offsets rising greenhouse gas concentrations» — thus creating a smaller net anthropogenic climate forcing.

Although the gross flux is what you appear to be interested in, it is the net flux that is the relevant comparison for anthropogenic emissions, given that the gross flux largely represents churning which does not alter atmospheric concentrations, except locally on a diurnal basis, and regionally on a seasonal basis.

Net - zero emissions will require carbon capture and storage (CCS) for all fossil fuels and other technologies (e.g., biomass with CCS or direct air capture) for residual emissions from fossil fuel extraction and from other anthropogenic sources such as agriculture.

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.

To put the necessary cap on total cumulative greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, leaders also agreed on net - zero emissions; that is, there must be «a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century».1

We agree that the net natural flux is about 50 % of anthropogenic emissions, but it is important to bear in mind that it is in the opposite direction.

Radiative forcing of anthropogenic sulfur emissions (purple line), net anthropogenic forcing (blue line), linear estimate of net anthropogenic forcing (blue dash), total radiative forcing (red line), radiative forcing of solar insolation (orange line), and observed temperature (black).

From the formula, we can see that the carbon footprint area is essentially calculated by dividing total anthropogenic carbon emissions remaining after accounting for ocean uptake (i.e., 72 % of net human emissions) by the rate at which existing forests sequester carbon.

Article 3 of the Kyoto Protocol states targets for emissions reductions in terms of «aggregate anthropogenic carbon dioxide equivalent emissions of the greenhouse gases listed in Annex A.» Using this approach, Australia's net greenhouse gas emissions across all sectors in 2004 totalled 564.7 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent.

If the environment were a net carbon source, the annual rise in atmospheric CO2 would be greater than anthropogenic emissions, not less.

«We do know for certain that the natural environment is a net carbon sink, becuase the annual rise in atmospheric CO2 is always less than anthropogenic emissions is useless information.

The overall net emission over this period = + 0.5 units yet we can see how anthropogenic and sea (e.g. warming) contribute equally to this figure while net natural emission (i.e. sea + land) is — 0.5 Do we really know enough about the carbon cycle, in particular the natural fluxes of CO2, to rule out that some thing like this is going on?

(ii) We have little control over the net gain / loss in atmospheric CO2, since anthropogenic emission is only part of the story, and potentially a small part.

/ p.a. (75 % of anthropogenic emissions) & the net increase is only halved; to 1ppm atmos.

O.K. in that case, if you think the natural environment is a net source, then explain why the observed rise is less than anthropogenic emissions.

If we compute the cumulative sum of the anthropogenic contribution to net global emission, we get the component of the observed increase in CO2 that is due to anthropogenic emissions, which is a steady linear trend rising at 1.5 ppmv per year.

Which clearly does a much better job of explaining the long term trend in atmsopheric CO2, even though the correlation between the anthropogenic component and net global emission is precisely zero!

(Top) Fossil fuel and cement CO2 emissions by category (Bottom) Fossil fuel and cement CO2 emissions, CO2 emissions from net land use change (mainly deforestation), the atmospheric CO2 growth rate, the ocean CO2 sink and the residual land sink which represents the sink of anthropogenic CO2 in natural land ecosystems.

K. B. Tokarska, K. Zickfeld, «The effectiveness of net negative carbon dioxide emissions in reversing anthropogenic climate change», Environmental Research Letters, 10 (2015) 094013.

This new concept of anthropogenic impacts on seawater pH formulated here accommodates the broad range of mechanisms involved in the anthropogenic forcing of pH in coastal ecosystems, including changes in land use, nutrient inputs, ecosystem structure and net metabolism, and emissions of gases to the atmosphere affecting the carbon system and associated pH. The new paradigm is applicable across marine systems, from open - ocean and ocean - dominated coastal systems, where OA by anthropogenic CO2 is the dominant mechanism of anthropogenic impacts on marine pH, to coastal ecosystems where a range of natural and anthropogenic processes may operate to affect pH.

Add to that paranthetical statement: on the othe hand, some net anthropogenic CO2 emissions are from other sources (deforestation, cement production).

(d) There is an even larger debate about climate forecasts, both the extent of future CO2 emissions and the net effects of the various natural and anthropogenic drivers.

Looking at Figure 3, if «mauna loa inferred emissions» is the observed change in atmospheric CO2 concentrations, then it shoud be the sum of anthropogenic emissions and the net natural flux imbalance (NNFI).