Sentences with phrase «reduces atmospheric concentrations»

The absolutely essential first step in reducing the atmospheric concentration to 350 ppm is a total global cessation of anthropogenic carbon emissions.

James Hansen, in his book, believes it is possible (or was possible then) to take actions which reduced the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to 350ppm (a level he considers the maximum to have a chance of avoiding catastrophic climate change).

A steady state would eventually be reached wherein CO2 loss balanced CO2 uptake, because any tendency of plants to absorb more CO2 would reduce atmospheric concentrations so as to reduce plant growth.

«As a society, we need to better understand the potential cost and performance of CDR strategies for the same reason that we need to better understand the cost and performance of emission mitigation strategies — they may be important parts of a portfolio of options to stabilize and reduce atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide»

However, at some point in time, air capture conceivably could be a useful tool to mitigate emissions from distributed sources, and may even be deployed to reduce atmospheric concentrations of CO2 below current concentrations.

The so - called «terra preta» soils offer the additional benefit of sequestering carbon, helping reduce atmospheric concentrations of CO2.

In addition, EPA analyzed how regulation of lead in gasoline would reduce atmospheric concentrations, reduce lead levels in blood, and, thus, improve public health.

The LGM radiative forcing from the reduced atmospheric concentrations of well - mixed greenhouse gases is likely to have been about — 2.8 W m — 2 (see Figure 6.5).

Skipping the details, they range from a future where emissions keep growing — RCP 8.5 — to a future in which we find ways to actively reduce atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases — RCP 2.6.

Turning biomass into biochar and burying it underground effectively withdraws CO2 from the atmosphere; if done at sufficient scale and in combination with aggressive reductions in annual greenhouse gas emissions, biochar thus could help reduce atmospheric concentrations of CO2.

Not exact matches

«Stabilizing or reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, therefore, requires very deep reductions in future emissions to compensate for past emissions that are still circulating in the Earth system,» the draft report says.

This suggests that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations of 400 ppm may be sufficient to greatly reduce the spatial extent and seasonal persistence of Arctic sea ice.

To resolve the energy poverty of billions will likely require burning more fossil fuels, but preventing catastrophic climate change definitely requires reducing concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gas.

«In the sense of reducing atmospheric CO2 concentrations, it is actually a good thing that these old trees are kicking into life again,» says Jinbao Li of the Tree Ring Lab at Columbia University in Palisades, New York.

Despite national and international efforts to reduce anthropogenic emissions, growing concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide will yield planetary warming and associated impacts for the foreseeable future.

If Arctic sea ice is reduced, we may therefore be facing an increase of atmospheric concentration of CO2, researchers warn.

Rising atmospheric CO2 is reducing the protein concentration of a floral pollen source essential for North American bees.

Nonetheless, the LGM climate remained cold due to the presence of large ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere (Peltier, 1994, 2004) and reduced atmospheric CO2 concentration (185 ppm according to recent ice core estimates, see Monnin et al., 2001).

Once global carbon dioxide emissions had been reduced to zero, some combination of atmospheric decay and carbon dioxide extraction, probably partially offset by some level of carbon dioxide re-release from the worlds oceans, might possibly reduce the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration to comply with the NAAQS.

My understanding is the world has had reduced emissions since 2014, but it hasn't shown up in the keeling curve atmospheric concentrations because its been obscured by the big 2015 el nino generating a lot of CO2 related to forests etc..

Putting the effects of higher atmospheric concentrations aside, if we double, triple, quadruple CO2 concentrations, how long does it take to reduce those emissions?

In a printed statement, Pieter Tans of the agency's Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colo., said the only way to stop growth in the atmospheric concentration of the gases is to reduce emissions enough that natural processes can keep pace.

Here is a revolutionary plan to reduce atmospheric carbon concentrations, well suited to the day of your annoucement:

With a lifetime of ~ 10 years, spreading emissions over 30 - year period would of course reduce the peak atmospheric burden (though CH4 lifetime would presumably increase with higher CH4 concentration).

To the best of my knowledge, increased atmospheric CO2 does not appreciably reduce the flux from below of CO2 - absorbable infrared into the stratosphere when a new steady state is achieved at the higher CO2 concentration.

We just need to reduce them to meet the terrestrial removal, which increase with increasing atmospheric concentrations.

While CO2 atmospheric concentration undeniably remains the main driver of climate change, CO2 is not the only GHG, and peaking and reducing CO2 emissions is not the ONLY policy being discussed.

The results of the analysis demonstrate that relative to the reference case, projected atmospheric CO2 concentrations are estimated by 2100 to be reduced by 3.29 to 3.68 part per million by volume (ppmv), global mean temperature is estimated to be reduced by 0.0076 to 0.0184 °C, and sea - level rise is projected to be reduced by approximately 0.074 — 0.166 cm, based on a range of climate sensitivities.

If the anthropogenic forcing wouldn't keep increasing anymore (because we would manage to suddenly reduce CO2 emission to a level that merely compensates upkeep by sinks, somehow, and the atmospheric concentration would remain constant) then surface temperature would slowly rise until the TOA balance is restored (and then rise some more as slow feedbacks kick in).

The term climate engineering (CE) specifically describes large - scale technical methods that can be used to reduce the concentration of CO2 in the atmospheric or to reduce incoming solar radiation.

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.

Elevated atmospheric CO2 is associated with decreased plant nitrogen concentration, and therefore decreased protein, in many crops, such as barley, sorghum, and soy.210, 211,212,213 The nutrient content of crops is also projected to decline if soil nitrogen levels are suboptimal, with reduced levels of nutrients such as calcium, iron, zinc, vitamins, and sugars, although this effect is alleviated if sufficient nitrogen is supplied.214 Fourth, farmers are expected to need to use more herbicides and pesticides because of increased growth of pests215, 216,217,218 and weeds219, 220 as well as decreased effectiveness221 and duration222of some of these chemicals (Ch.

I've shown you that even this very drastic scheme would reduce CO2 in the atmosphere by 2100 by a calculated 104 ppmv, reducing atmospheric CO2 concentration from the 600 ppmv estimated by IPCC models to 496 ppmv..

In a recent post, I made the optimistic argument that, despite all the obstacles thrown up by rightwing denialism, the world is on track to reduce CO2 emissions to zero by 2050, on a trajectory that would hold atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases below 450 ppm.

Requires the EPA Administrator to report to Congress by July 1, 2013, and every four years thereafter, on an analysis of: (1) key findings based on the latest scientific information relevant to global climate change; (2) capabilities to monitor and verify GHG reductions on a worldwide basis; and (3) the status of worldwide efforts for reducing GHG emission, preventing dangerous atmospheric concentrations of GHGs, preventing significant irreversible consequences of climate change, and reducing vulnerability to the impacts of climate change.

«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.

The technologies currently exist to dramatically increase our fuel efficiency today to as high as 45 miles per gallon — and we must take advantage of these technologies in order to reduce atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations to 350 parts per million and prevent climate catastrophe.

«(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.

Leading climate scientists say atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations should be reduced to 350 parts per million to avoid catastrophic, irreversible impacts.

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.

As a result of the discovery of ozone depletion and the scientific advances that delineated its causes, efforts to reduce the production, and ultimately the atmospheric concentrations, of ozone - depleting chemicals were begun in the late 1980s through the ratification of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer by many countries across the globe.

Many opponents of climate change policies argue that countries like the United States should not have to reduce their ghg emissions until China reduces its emissions by comparable amounts because China is now the largest emitter of all nations in terms of total tons, yet such an argument usually ignores the historical responsibility of countries like the United States which the following illustration reveals is more than twice as responsible for current elevated atmospheric ghg concentrations than China is.

Do you agree that a nation that refuses to reduce its ghg emission to its fair share of safe global ghg emissions on the basis of cost to it is implicitly taking a position on how high atmospheric concentrations of ghgs should be allowed to rise and that the higher atmosphere ghg concentrations rise the more people and the ecological systems on which life depends will be harmed?.

If you concede that climate skeptics have not proven in peer - reviewed journals that human - induced warming is not a very serious threat to human health and ecological systems, given that human - induced warming could create catastrophic warming the longer the human community waits to respond to reduce the threat of climate change and the more difficult it will be to prevent dangerous warming, do you agree that those nations most responsible for rising atmospheric ghg concentrations have a duty to demonstrate that their ghg emissions are safe?

The second is the urgency of the need for hard - to - imagine action to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas (ghg) emissions at all scales, that is globally, nationally, and locally, but particularly in high - emitting nations such as the United States in light of the limited amount of ghgs that can be emitted by the entire world before raising atmospheric ghg concentrations to very dangerous levels and in light of the need to fairly allocate ghg emissions reductions obligations around the world.

If you concede that climate skeptics have not proven in peer - reviewed journals that human - induced warming is not a very serious threat to human health and ecological systems, given that human - induced warming could create catastrophic warming the longer the human community waits to respond to reduce the threat of climate change and the more difficult it will be to prevent dangerous warming, do you agree that those responsible for rising atmospheric ghg concentrations have a duty to demonstrate that their ghg emissions are safe?

This question is designed to expose that refusals of nations to reduce their emissions to their fair share of safe global emissions is implicitly a position on acceptable levels of atmospheric ghg concentrations which is essentially a moral issue because a position on acceptable atmospheric ghg concentrations is a position on who shall be greatly harmed by human - induced climate change.

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?

Do you agree that a nation that refuses to reduce its ghg emission to its fair share of safe global ghg emissions on the basis of cost to it is implicitly taking a position on how high atmospheric concentrations of ghgs should be allowed to rise and that the higher atmosphere ghg concentrations rise the more people and the ecological systems will be harmed?.

They include: (1) a 35 year US delay on climate action has made the problem extraordinarily challenging to solve, (2) US greenhouse gas (ghg) emissions are more than any country responsible for rise in atmospheric concentrations to present dangerous levels, (3) US ghg emissions not only threaten the US with climate disruption but endanger many of the poorest people around the world, (4) the Obama administration's pledge to reduce ghg emissions is far short of the US fair share of safe global emissions.