Sentences with phrase «reduce high global warming»

Not exact matches

From climate campaigners to high - level diplomats, those who are committed to fighting global warming say making a strong agreement in Paris next year that radically reduces levels of greenhouse gas emissions is critical.

But the Berlin workshop concluded that the real figure is even higher — aerosols may have reduced global warming by as much as three - quarters, cutting increases by 1.8 °C.

For example, it assumed absurdly low benefits to reducing global warming, and absurdly high costs.

In one sentence: Researchers at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and colleagues found that if followed by measures of equal or greater ambition, individual country pledges to reduce their emissions called Intended Nationally Determined Contributions have the potential to reduce the probability of the highest levels of warming and increase the probability of limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius.

«Geoengineering» experiments proposed to reduce global warming by blocking sunlight with atmosphere - injected particles may cool the world but still leave carbon dioxide levels dangerously high, Stanford scientists say.

[1] CO2 absorbs IR, is the main GHG, human emissions are increasing its concentration in the atmosphere, raising temperatures globally; the second GHG, water vapor, exists in equilibrium with water / ice, would precipitate out if not for the CO2, so acts as a feedback; since the oceans cover so much of the planet, water is a large positive feedback; melting snow and ice as the atmosphere warms decreases albedo, another positive feedback, biased toward the poles, which gives larger polar warming than the global average; decreasing the temperature gradient from the equator to the poles is reducing the driving forces for the jetstream; the jetstream's meanders are increasing in amplitude and slowing, just like the lower Missippi River where its driving gradient decreases; the larger slower meanders increase the amplitude and duration of blocking highs, increasing drought and extreme temperatures — and 30,000 + Europeans and 5,000 plus Russians die, and the US corn crop, Russian wheat crop, and Aussie wildland fire protection fails — or extreme rainfall floods the US, France, Pakistan, Thailand (driving up prices for disk drives — hows that for unexpected adverse impacts from AGW?)

Recently, concern has arisen over whether global warming could affect this heat transport (Watson et al., 2001), for example, reducing high latitude convection and triggering a collapse of the deep overturning circulation (Rahmstorf, 1995).

For global warming scenarios, additional forcing comes into play: surface warming and enhanced high - latitude precipitation, which will also reduce density of northern surface waters (an effect which alone has shut down deep water formation in some model experiments, e.g. Manabe and Stouffer 1993, 1994).

(2) Prudence requires us to mitigate global warming, even if we are not sure it is being caused by human emissions (and we are sure, and this new skeptical study does not reduce that high level of certainty).

Global warming is expected to reduce the ocean's ability to absorb CO2, leaving more in the atmosphere... which will lead to even higher temperatures as below from NASA.

This announcement shows that China is committed at the highest - level to dealing with this challenge and that it will take clear steps to reduce its global warming pollution.

In the real world the most obvious and most common reason for an increase in the speed of energy flow through the system occurs naturally when the oceans are in warm surface mode and solar input to the oceans due to reduced global albedo is high as apparently occurred during the period 1975 to 1998.

Brazil, for example, has reduced its deforestation - related emissions by two - thirds in just six years, and Indonesia, a large emitter of global warming pollution because of high rates of deforestation, has pledged to cut overall emissions by more than 25 percent by 2020.

And it seems if somehow the ocean's effect is reduced, one will colder conditions and possibly even higher day time high temperatures, but there less room to get warmer, as compared to get cooler, and so global temperature lowers.

Should a developed nation such as the United States which has much higher historical and per capita emissions than other nations be able to justify its refusal to reduce its ghg emissions to its fair share of safe global emissions on the basis of scientific uncertainty, given that if the mainstream science is correct, the world is rapidly running out of time to prevent warming above 2 degrees C, a temperature limit which if exceeded may cause rapid, non-linear climate change.

In arguing that the United States or other high - emitting nations need not reduce their ghg emissions to their fair share of safe global emissions based on cost, how have you considered, if at all, that all nations have agreed in international climate negotiations to take steps to limit warming to 2 degree C because warming greater than this amount will not only create harsh impacts for tens of millions of people but runs the risk of creating rapid non-linear warming that will outstrip the ability of people and nations to adapt?

Next there was very high solar activity (high deflection of GCRs and reduced cloud cover) in cycles 21 - 22 from 1976 to 1996, the global warming scare.

«So far, the benefits of global greening have been greater than expected, while the costs of global warming have been smaller than expected and the price of reducing carbon dioxide emissions has been higher than expected.

«Climate science» as it is used by warmists implies adherence to a set of beliefs: (1) Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations will warm the Earth's surface and atmosphere; (2) Human production of CO2 is producing significant increases in CO2 concentration; (3) The rate of rise of temperature in the 20th and 21st centuries is unprecedented compared to the rates of change of temperature in the previous two millennia and this can only be due to rising greenhouse gas concentrations; (4) The climate of the 19th century was ideal and may be taken as a standard to compare against any current climate; (5) global climate models, while still not perfect, are good enough to indicate that continued use of fossil fuels at projected rates in the 21st century will cause the CO2 concentration to rise to a high level by 2100 (possibly 700 to 900 ppm); (6) The global average temperature under this condition will rise more than 3 °C from the late 19th century ideal; (7) The negative impact on humanity of such a rise will be enormous; (8) The only alternative to such a disaster is to immediately and sharply reduce CO2 emissions (reducing emissions in 2050 by 80 % compared to today's rate) and continue further reductions after 2050; (9) Even with such draconian CO2 reductions, the CO2 concentration is likely to reach at least 450 to 500 ppm by 2100 resulting in significant damage to humanity; (10) Such reductions in CO2 emissions are technically feasible and economically affordable while providing adequate energy to a growing world population that is increasingly industrializing.

Reducing HFCs: The U.S. is also taking action to phase down the use of high - global - warming - potential HFCs by finding environmentally - friendly alternatives to traditional ozone - depleting substances through the Significant New Alternatives Policy, or SNAP, program.

Because, as we have demonstrated in the recent article on «equity» and climate change, there are approximately 50 ppm of CO2 equivalent atmospheric space that remain to be allocated among all nations to give the world approximately a 50 % chance of avoiding a 2oC warming and developing nations that have done little to elevate atmospheric CO2 to current levels need a significant portion of the remaining atmospheric space, high emitting developed nations need to reduce their emissions as fast as possible to levels that represent their fair share of the remaining acceptable global budget.

Higher methane concentrations in the atmosphere will accelerate global warming and hasten local changes in the Arctic, speeding up sea - ice retreat, reducing the reflection of solar energy and accelerating the melting of the Greenland ice sheet.

«Our approach promises environmental progress in reducing harmful global warming, economic progress by creating new high - tech jobs to meet emissions goals, and international progress by showing our allies that we're serious about this global problem.»

Interestingly, Penner et al. find that whether the climate sensitivity parameter is on the low or high end, reducing anthropogenic emissions of the short - lived warming pollutants would achieve a significant reduction in global warming over the next 50 - 100 years.

The Nature study suggests that global warming will mix growing amounts of higher, drier air with ocean clouds over the course of the century, thinning out the clouds and reducing their cooling effect.

Claiming the «global warming» moral high ground, wind power proponents continue to blindly chant the mantra that wind power reduces CO2 emissions — although they rarely, if ever, talk about the actual cost of the claimed reductions.

When people are aware of the high level of scientific agreement on human - caused global warming, they're more likely to accept that climate change is happening, that humans are causing it and support policies to reduce carbon pollution.

Those who want to preserve the status quo have continued to deny and attack the expert consensus because it's a «gateway belief»: when people are aware of the high level of scientific agreement on human - caused global warming, they're more likely to accept that climate change is happening, that humans are causing it, and support policies to reduce carbon pollution.

Yet when informed high - tech analysis is applied to an objective review of renewable green energy, it becomes readily apparent that current renewable energy options are abject failures on all counts, including the goal of reducing global warming.

New research published in the journal Science shows that coordinated international reductions of greenhouse gases over time have the strong potential to reduce the highest levels of global warming.

By then, annual CO2 emissions from the US and EU will be somewhat reduced (my prediction, based on recent trends), CO2 emissions from industrializing nations will be higher, alternative sources of energy will be cheaper; and we'll have 20 more years of experience with the natural disasters that will recur dramatically with or without global mean warming or cooling.

But that is too high a price to pay in part due to the uncertainty over what federal and state governments will do to reduce carbon emissions to combat global warming, the spokesman explained.

More on the high, but heretofore largely neglected, role that soot plays in increasing global warming: Research from Stanford University shows that soot is second only to carbon dioxide in its warming contribution, and that reducing it may be the only way we can stop Arctic sea ice melting.

This is set to rise steadily higher — yet it is being imposed for only one reason: the widespread conviction, which is shared by politicians of all stripes and drilled into children at primary schools, that, without drastic action to reduce carbon - dioxide emissions, global warming is certain soon to accelerate, with truly catastrophic consequences by the end of the century — when temperatures could be up to five degrees higher.

As expected, we found that at mid - and high latitudes, projected warming will reduce the number of days below freezing, resulting in more suitable growing days (the average global number of days above freezing will increase by 2 %, 5 %, and 7 % under RCP 2.6, RCP 4.5, and RCP 8.5, respectively; Fig 2A, S5A — S5D Fig, S6A — S6C Fig)[35].

«Biofuels made from high - diversity mixtures of prairie plants can reduce global warming by removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

A paper from the late 1980s suggests that a return to high population numbers may be a more plausible cause for mass gatherings of females and calves that lead to stampede deaths than does reduced sea ice due to global warming.