A follow on question (a tad impolite) is, if the sensitivity number is not a guide to possible future temperatures, and therefor policy planning (like a threshhold
of dangerous interference per UNFCCC), what is it good for?
Not exact matches
The objective
of the treaty is to «stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent
dangerous anthropogenic
interference with the climate system.»
«We see no evidence
of Kyoto actually leading to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, much less
of stimulating the fundamental technological change that will be required to achieve the 60 - 80 % reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that scientists tell us the world will need to achieve in order to prevent what the Framework Convention calls «
dangerous interference with the atmosphere».»
The minister has reminded me that this can be a
dangerous path to follow — it smacks
of direct political
interference.
But Trump's announcement sends a strong message that the US would rather be one
of only two nations in the world that is not interested in preventing «
dangerous anthropogenic
interference with the climate system».
This simple analysis shows that the «2 degree target»
of «
dangerous anthropogenic
interference» is looming on the horizon, as the climate equilibrates and aerosol pollution is cleaned up.
The ultimate objective
of all agreements under the UNFCCC is to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that will prevent
dangerous human
interference with the climate system, in a time frame which allows ecosystems to adapt naturally and enables sustainable development.
Mann said
of the possible record, «hopefully it will also drive home the urgency
of reducing carbon emissions if we are to avoid
dangerous interference with our climate.»
The ultimate objective
of both treaties is to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that will prevent
dangerous human
interference with the climate system.
In a 1989 commentary for the New York Times, she wrote that, while «censorship and government
interference in the directions and standards
of art are
dangerous and not part
of the democratic process», she worked against the delivery
of grants to controversial artists such as Andres Serrano and Robert Mapplethorpe, concerned that the NEA was supporting work «
of increasingly dubious quality.
We are therefore committed to -LSB-...] stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations at a level that would prevent
dangerous anthropogenic
interference with the climate system -LSB-...] we will consider seriously the decisions made by the European Union, Canada and Japan which include at least a halving
of global emissions by 2050.
There is increasing evidence that some slow feedbacks can be triggered within decades, so they must be given major consideration in establishing the
dangerous level
of human - made climate
interference.
«stabilization
of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent
dangerous anthropogenic
interference with the climate system»
One provision
of that treaty is that countries pledge to stabilize concentrations
of greenhouse gases at a level avoiding «
dangerous»
interference with the climate system.
The most encouraging thing for me to come from this paper is not the variance in percieved GHG and related forcing levels that may or may not constitute
Dangerous Anthropogenic
Interference, but the acknowledgement
of the rate
of change in emissions due to fuel price increases and the exponential growth
of public awareness.
In the absence
of being able to make that policy call at this time on
dangerous interference, what we're doing as an interim measure is working bottom up to see how aggressive can we be in finding a pathway to low - carbon power generation from coal, because that accounts for more than 50 percent
of emissions; how aggressive can we be in transitioning to a much greater diversity
of fuel supply than petroleum, and vehicle technology, and that's 20 percent
of emissions; and then what can we do much more rapidly to halt deforestation, which is 20 percent
of emissions.
If the science pointing to a rising risk
of dangerous human
interference with climate is settled, the thinking goes, then why aren't people and the world's nations galvanized?
But despite pledging to avoid «
dangerous»
interference with the climate system through the buildup
of greenhouse gases, the 192 countries that ratified that treaty are still on a trajectory to more than double the pre-industrial concentration
of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in this century.
(3) From the supporting perspective article: «All this would be very bad news if avoiding
dangerous anthropogenic
interference in the climate system required us to specify today a stabilization concentration
of carbon dioxide (or equivalent) for which the risk
of dangerous warming is acceptably low.
8:00 p.m. Updated Today saw the official opening in Cancún, Mexico,
of talks over a new treaty aimed, theoretically, at avoiding
dangerous human
interference with the climate system.
Much
of the discussion about tipping points, like the discussion about «
dangerous interference» with climate often implicitly assumes that there is just «a» point at which things tip and become «
dangerous».
The UNFCCC, through its Conference
of Parties, tries to negotiate, and make legally binding, pathways towards lower emissions
of greenhouse gases, to avoid «
dangerous anthropogenic
interference with the climate system.»
Figure
of 400 ppm calculated using fossil fuel emissions from G. Marland et al., «Global, Regional, and National CO2 Emissions,» in Trends: A Compendium
of Data on Global Change (Oak Ridge, TN: Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 2007), and land use change emissions from R. A. Houghton and J. L. Hackler, «Carbon Flux to the Atmosphere from Land - Use Changes,» in Trends: A Compendium
of Data on Global Change (Oak Ridge, TN: Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 2002), with decay curve cited in J. Hansen et al., «
Dangerous Human - Made
Interference with Climate: A GISS ModelE Study,» Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, vol.
The 1992 U.N. treaty [Framework Convention on Climate Change] called for «stabilization
of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent
dangerous anthropogenic
interference with the climate system.»
It has as an «ultimate objective» the stabilising
of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere «at a level that would prevent
dangerous anthropogenic (human - induced)
interference with the climate system.»
Given the increased levels
of certainty regarding human - induced global warming (from 90 to 95 %), more robust projections on sea - level rise and data on melting
of ice sheets, and the «carbon budget» for staying below the 2 °C target, the WGI conclusions together with other AR5 component reports are likely to put more pressure on the UNFCCC parties to deliver by 2015 an ambitious agreement that is capable
of preventing
dangerous anthropogenic
interference with the climate system.
Article 2
of the FCCC states that its ultimate objective is to «achieve stabilization
of greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent
dangerous anthropogenic [man - made]
interference with the climate system.»
«The ultimate objective
of this Convention... is to achieve,... stabilization
of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent
dangerous anthropogenic
interference with the climate system.»
Reports such as those
of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) demonstrate that science is far too immature to know what, if any, GHG concentrations would cause «
dangerous anthropogenic
interference with the climate system.»
The treaty's principal objective was «stabilization
of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent
dangerous anthropogenic [i.e., man - made]
interference with the climate system.»
``... to achieve... stabilization
of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent
dangerous anthropogenic
interference with the climate system.»
Robust appraisals
of climate impacts at different levels
of global - mean temperature increase are vital to guide assessments
of dangerous anthropogenic
interference with the climate system.
Judith: I happen to agree that Article II
of the UNFCCC (stabilization to avoid
dangerous anthropogenic
interference) may not have been the most helpful way to phrase the problem.
As the negotiations grow ever more technical and complex, it is good to keep in mind that the ultimate goal
of the convetion is to stabilize the green house gases in the atmosphere to a level that prevents
dangerous anthropogenic
interference with the climate system.
And many — and this is predominantly (although not exclusively) to be laid at the feet
of the Republicans — deliberately exploited legitimate concerns about government overreach and government
interference in the market to gin up a malignant hatred
of government for the politically expedient purpose
of laying cover for very risky and highly
dangerous policies that served to benefit a tiny %
of the public disproportionately.
The 2009 Copenhagen Accord — the document that emerged from that year's UN Climate Change Conference — enshrined a two - degree rise in global average temperature as the threshold
of «
dangerous» human
interference in the climate system.
One
of the reasons the world is now running out
of time to prevent
dangerous climate change is because fossil fuel companies and their allies in the US Congress has prevented the United States from taking serious action on climate change since 1992 when the George H. W Bush administration agreed in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change that the United States should adopt policies and measures to prevent
dangerous anthropocentric
interference on climate change on the basis
of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities.
Stabilization
of climate to avoid «
dangerous anthropogenic
interference with the climate system», as called for in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, will require significant cutbacks in greenhouse gas emissions during the 21st century; and
This is a central but not exhaustive component
of potentially
dangerous anthropogenic
interference with the climate system.
In addition to the ethical problems with cost arguments identified above in response to questions one and two, this question is also designed to expose the fact that a nation that refuses to reduce its ghg emissions to its fair share
of safe global emissions is violating promises it made under the UNFCCC to adopt» policies and measures to prevent
dangerous anthropocentric
interference with the climate system.»
Hence, avoiding
dangerous levels
of CO2 - induced warming is a necessary, albeit not always sufficient, condition for avoiding potentially
dangerous anthropogenic
interference in the climate system.
The criterion, in the words
of Article 2, is «
dangerous anthropogenic
interference with the climate system» — a framing that invokes both scientific analysis and human values.
The ultimate objective
of all agreements under the UNFCCC is to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that will prevent
dangerous human
interference with the climate system, in a time frame which allows ecosystems to adapt naturally and enables sustainable development.
[i] Many believe that a rise
of 2 — 2.5 oC will cause a «
dangerous anthropogenic
interference with climate.»
«I am one
of those who believes that ANY REASONABLY COMPREHENSIVE AND UP - TO - DATE LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE MAKES CLEAR THAT CIVILIZATION HAS ALREADY GENERATED
DANGEROUS ANTHROPOGENIC
INTERFERENCE IN THE CLIMATE SYSTEM.
Even if all nations agree in principle, any levels
of emissions cuts acceptable to both the global North and global South would not be enough to forestall
dangerous interference with the climate.
Recognition
of this reality and perceptions
of what is «politically feasible» may partially account for acceptance
of targets for global warming and carbon emissions that are well into the range
of «
dangerous human - made
interference» with climate.
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is an environmental treaty that nations joined in 1992, with the goal
of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent
dangerous human
interference with the climate system.
The UN protocol requires every nation on earth to reduce their atmospheric emissions
of greenhouse gas to 94.8 %
of 1990 levels to «prevent
dangerous anthropogenic
interference with the climate system.»
Article 2 The ultimate objective
of this Convention and any related legal instruments that the Conference
of the Parties may adopt is to achieve, in accordance with the relevant provisions
of the Convention, stabilization
of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent
dangerous anthropogenic
interference with the climate system.