Sentences with phrase «other atmospheric emissions»

The model also considered how reducing soot could impact other atmospheric emissions, including sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxide and organic carbon.

Not exact matches

Other scientists have criticized the planetary boundaries as too generous (for example, allowing too much human appropriation of freshwater flows) or employing the wrong metric (atmospheric concentrations of CO2 rather than cumulative emissions of greenhouse gases).

Among his proudest accomplishments: helping the agency develop a set of numbers called emission factors — values that enable regulators to estimate atmospheric discharges from power plants, oil refineries, chemical plants and other industrial operations.

Satellite images and atmospheric models such as these have helped Jaffe demonstrate how mercury and other emissions from China feed into a complex network of air currents that distribute pollutants across the globe.

To derive the climate projections for this assessment, we employed 20 general circulation models to consider two scenarios of global carbon emissions: one where atmospheric greenhouse gases are stabilized by the end of the century and the other where it grows on its current path (the stabilization [RCP4.5] and business - as - usual [RCP8.5] emission scenarios, respectively).

We collectively need to demand that there is no acceptable response to climate change other than strong emission reductions, ensuring that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are returned to 350ppm levels, global temperature rise is kept (at the maximum) 2 °C and, even better, 1.5 °C — to do that, as was emphasized on numerous occasions, we need a F.A.B. climate deal: Fair, Ambitious, and (perhaps most importantly) Binding.

If you know that the total mass of fossil fuel emissions is roughly double the total annual atmospheric accumulation it's a little easier to realize that all the other possible explanations are besides the point, even if there is a little source here and a little sink there.

In other words, shells of these marine organisms may simply dissolve as soon as atmospheric CO2 reaches the levels that are expected to occur in about 50 years under the IS92a business - as - usual CO2 emissions scenario.

The basic ingredients are easy to list: — absorption / emission properties (or spectroscopic parameters) of CO2 at atmospheric pressures, i.e. data presently available from HITRAN - database combined with models of line broadening — observed properties of the atmosphere where most important features include clouds and moisture content, but many other factors have some influence — computer model of the transmission of radiation along the lines of MODTRAN or GENLN2

Climate alarm depends on several gloomy assumptions — about how fast emissions will increase, how fast atmospheric concentrations will rise, how much global temperatures will rise, how warming will affect ice sheet dynamics and sea - level rise, how warming will affect weather patterns, how the latter will affect agriculture and other economic activities, and how all climate change impacts will affect public health and welfare.

Combustion of coal, oil, and natural gas, and to a lesser extent deforestation, land - cover change, and emissions of halocarbons and other greenhouse gases, are rapidly increasing the atmospheric concentrations of climate - warming gases.

This is true because most mainstream scientists have concluded that the world must reduce total global emissions by at the very least 60 to 80 percent below existing levels to stabilize GHG atmospheric concentrations at minimally safe atmospheric GHG concentrations and the United States is a huge emitter both in historical terms and in comparison to current emissions levels of other high emitting nations.

The devotees of both sides of the mainstream climate debate i.e. on the one hand those who warn against the dangers of global warming, which they attribute mainly to atmospheric emissions of carbon dioxide, and on the other those who assert that the theory of anthropogenic global warming is a fraud, resort to hysteria when they sense that their ideas are under threat.

Solomon argued a couple of years ago that cumulative carbon emissions are the best way of assessing climate risk, since they avoid problems such as time lags that mess with other measures, such as atmospheric concentrations.

But it transpired before long that it will take a lot of time to decrease the anthropogenic pressure by reducing CO2 and other hothouse emissions in order to stabilize the atmospheric level, and that the industrialized countries were not likely to cope with this task on their own.

The release of gas hydrates may still be stoppable through a suite of techniques including withdrawing atmospheric CO2 by rapidly building soil fertility on a global scale, reforestation to increase reflective cloud cover, and rapidly reducing CO2 emissions — in other words, a massive emergency campaign to cool the planet: Climate Code Red!

«At present, CSIRO and other measurements show that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are rising progressively faster each year — so the judgement of the atmosphere is that global efforts to reduce emissions have so far been spectacularly unsuccessful.

This vast emission has spiked atmospheric CO2 and CO2e (when all other heat trapping gasses are included) levels to above 400 parts per million and 481 parts per million respectively.

Given that any national ghg emissions target is implicitly a position on achieving an atmospheric ghg concentration that will avoid dangerous climate change, to what extent has the nation identified the ghg atmospheric concentration stabilization level that the national emissions reduction target seeks to achieve in cooperation with other nations.

In other words, the atmospheric C13 ratio, and its change in comparison to human CO2 emissions, forms a kind of «fingerprint.»

«(3) an analysis of the status of worldwide greenhouse gas reduction efforts, including implementation of the Safe Climate Act and other policies, both domestic and international, for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, preventing dangerous atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, preventing significant irreversible consequences of climate change, and reducing vulnerability to the impacts of climate change.

Emissions of other short - lived gases (CO, NOx, NMVOCs, and CH4) also needed to be mapped to a global grid for use in atmospheric chemistry models.

This question is designed to expose the ethical duty of all nations to reduce their ghg emissions to their fair share of safe global emissions regardless of what other nations do because any nation emitting ghg emissions above its fair share of safe global emissions is contributing to elevated atmospheric ghg concentrations which are harming and threatening others.

Certainly, CO2 and other anthropogenic GHG emissions are a potent driver of warming, with water serving in a feedback role due to its short atmospheric lifetime.

Are you aware that the United States is much more responsible for elevated atmospheric ghg concentrations than any other country including China because of US historical and per capita emissions?

Instead atmospheric physics uses the fundamental equations (the radiative transfer equations) which determine absorption and emission of radiation by water vapor, CO2, methane, and other trace gases.

Are you aware that the claim frequently made by opponents of US and other national action on climate change that if the country acts to reduce its ghg emissions and China or other developing country does not act it will make no difference because climate change will still happen is not true because ghg emissions from nations exceeding their fair share of safe global emissions are responsible for rising atmospheric concentrations of ghgs?

After that, we have the «Atmospheric Windows» where emission is direct to space with no interception in the GHG bands and this emission comes from the hard surface and any other atmospheric molecule.

Climate skeptic scientists have long questioned whether the effects of relatively minor (compared to other CO2 sources and sinks) human - caused emissions of CO2 have more than a minor effect on global temperatures and some have even questioned whether the UN and USEPA have even gotten the causation backwards (i.e., because on balance global temperatures affect atmospheric CO2 levels).

The model calculates the path of atmospheric CO2 and other GHG concentrations, global mean surface temperature, and mean sea level rise resulting from these emissions.

Yet even if appropriate measures were taken today to reduce global emissions by 80 percent by 2050, current atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other long - lived greenhouse gases are already such that the next 50 years of climate change can not be averted.

And this all supports the analysis that the climate is much more sensitive to changes in greenhouse gas emissions and other «forcings» than the IPCC models have been saying and that a doubling of atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide from preindustrial levels to 550 ppm will ultimately warm the planet far more than 3 °C, as NASA's James Hansen argues (see «Long - term» climate sensitivity of 6 °C for doubled CO2).

Methane and nitrous oxide emissions from agriculture and other human activities add to the atmospheric burden of heat - trapping gases.

Americans increasingly understand that even sending US carbon dioxide emissions back to 1870 levels, as congressional climate bills would do, will not reduce global atmospheric CO2 levels, because emissions from China, India and other nations will rapidly offset our painful reductions.

No national policy on climate change is ethically acceptable unless it, in combination with fair levels of greenhouse gas emissions from other countries, leads to stabilizing greenhouse gas atmospheric concentrations at levels that prevent harm to those around the world who are most vulnerable to climate change.

The reasons are several and include: (a) Their emissions levels are very high compared to others; (b) Huge reductions in emissions from existing emissions levels are necessary to achieve safe atmospheric stabilization levels; and (c) Climate change damages to some people, not to mention plants, animals, and ecological systems, are already occurring.

In other words how does your emissions reduction commitment, in combination with others, achieve an acceptable ghg atmospheric concentration that limits warming to 2 °C or the 1.5 °C warming limit that may be necessary to prevent catastrophic warming?

A large number of risks exist that incent reducing atmospheric pCO2, and human emissions of fossil carbon, as quickly as possible without impacting other important considerations.

Emissions from these sources are equal to about 1 % of total atmospheric CO2, annually, so the ~ 0.5 % annual increase in CO2 has other contributions as well: CO2 emissions not accounted for above, climate feedback, deforestatiEmissions from these sources are equal to about 1 % of total atmospheric CO2, annually, so the ~ 0.5 % annual increase in CO2 has other contributions as well: CO2 emissions not accounted for above, climate feedback, deforestatiemissions not accounted for above, climate feedback, deforestation, etc..

So, other possible explanations the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration other than the anthropogenic emissions deserve investigation.

The 2012 budget cut funding for the measure of industrial emissions, closed an oil spill monitoring facility in British Columbia and a global water quality monitoring centre in Ontario, slashed funding for atmospheric research — resulting, among other things, in the partial closure of a vital research station in the High Arctic — and killed the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, which had been created by the Mulroney government.

Some are described, with references, in the RC piece by Corrine Le Quere, but other data include the quantitative bookkeeping from industrial emissions records, as well as data on changing atmospheric O2 and C14 levels.

The rapid emergence of China, India, and other developing economies as formidable economic competitors to OECD economies has also rendered two further pillars of the old framework untenable: first, the notion that rich countries would agree to very deeply cut their own emissions to create more atmospheric space for poor nations emissions to grow or, alternatively, that they would heavily subsidize the deployment of cleaner but more expensive energy technologies in the developing world.

In addition, the Endangerment Rule authorizes or obligates EPA to establish: (1) greenhouse gas emission standards for heavy trucks, marine vessels, aircraft, locomotives, and other non-road vehicles and engines; (2) greenhouse gas performance standards for potentially dozens of industrial source categories; and, (3) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for greenhouse gases set below current atmospheric concentrations.

Not only is the atmospheric impact of the current leak considerable (in three months the well had already released «more greenhouse gases than any other facility in California,» and already «more than doubled the methane emissions of the entire Los Angeles Basin and surpassed what is released by all industrial activity in the state.»)

The U. S. economy could shut down completely, and emissions from other countries would soon push atmospheric levels past 450.

So, enjoined by a recent reCatcha to «ask mitely,» I will try at least one more time to ask if dashed line on graph # 3 in the recent Nature Geoscience article (by MacDougall, Avis and Weaver) on permafrost melt — taken together with the known fact that there are other carbon (and other) positive feedbacks — mean that, even if we stop all anthropogenic CO2 emissions next year, atmospheric CO2 levels will continue to rise indefinitely?

That would increase the «atmospheric window» from 24 % to about 39 %, leaving only about 1 % of the total for the net of all other radiant emissions).

Because of the combination of high absorption, a regional distribution roughly aligned with solar irradiance, and the capacity to form widespread atmospheric brown clouds in a mixture with other aerosols, emissions of black carbon are the second strongest contribution to current global warming, after carbon dioxide emissions.

For even if the models are proven to be wrong with respect to their predictions of atmospheric warming, extreme weather, glacial melt, sea level rise, or any other attendant catastrophe, those who seek to regulate and reduce CO2 emissions have a fall - back position, claiming that no matter what happens to the climate, the nations of the Earth must reduce their greenhouse gas emissions because of projected direct negative impacts on marine organisms via ocean acidification.