Sentences with phrase «reducing atmospheric levels»

■» Enhancing the natural processes that remove CO2 from the atmosphere is thought to be the most cost - effective means of reducing atmospheric levels of CO2.»

But the carbon dynamic in these forests is not fully understood, making it difficult to know how well this plan is reducing atmospheric levels of CO2.

economic contractions the size of the Great Recession or even bigger will be needed to reduce atmospheric levels of CO

Not exact matches

A curious detail also shown by the study is a reduction in atmospheric pollution from lead during the last few decades, which, as Lozano concludes, «suggests that the global measures taken to reduce lead emissions, such as the use of lead - free gasoline, have helped to reduce the levels of this metal in the atmosphere.»

Stemming CO2 (to an atmospheric level of 450 ppm) reduced that warming by about 0.5 °C.

Fertilizing the ocean with iron could help reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, according to newly released findings of a research cruise.

«Modern atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are today equivalent to those about three million years ago, when sea level was at least six meters higher because the ice sheets were greatly reduced.

If humanity does not act to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels will continue to climb and Earth's average temperature will escalate.

For example, he said, most participants recognized that carbon dioxide increases global temperatures, yet mistakenly indicated that rising levels of atmospheric CO2 are expected to «reduce photosynthesis in plants.»

This changed ocean chemistry and reduced atmospheric CO2 levels, which increased global ice coverage and propelled Earth into severe icehouse conditions.

This has great potential to lower atmospheric CO2 levels (reducing warming) and dissolved CO2 levels (reducing ocean acidification).»

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.

Until atmospheric levels of CO2 move over perhaps a decade long, we cant be sure we are really reducing emissions.

According to James Hansen, if we reduce emissions by 3 % / year starting in 2020, atmospheric CO2 levels will stabilize and we can stay below +1.5 ºC warming (see his Young Peoples Burden Paper (Figures 10 - 12): https://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/8/577/2017/esd-8-577-2017.pdf

The» kind of extreme event» you refer to was a powerful El Nino which boosts atmospheric CO2 levels by reducing CO2 uptake by the biosphere.

Growing trees that then release their carbon 100 years from now might reduce the size of the transient atmospheric high level, without changing the long climate tail.

Is there a reasonably likely climate change scenario that would reduce atmospheric O2 below the level at which an average human dies within an hour?

Well, if we add atmospheric absorption to wavelengths just outside the first band, there could be initial cooling of lower levels and warming of upper levels as explained in 1b, which will be enhanced if this is added at shorter wavelengths (reduced if addeed at longer wavelengths) relative to where the initial atmopsheric absorption was (see 438).

This falls far short of the cuts needed to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide levels to 350 parts per million (ppm).

(Note that radiative forcing is not necessarily proportional to reduction in atmospheric transparency, because relatively opaque layers in the lower warmer troposphere (water vapor, and for the fractional area they occupy, low level clouds) can reduce atmospheric transparency a lot on their own while only reducing the net upward LW flux above them by a small amount; colder, higher - level clouds will have a bigger effect on the net upward LW flux above them (per fraction of areal coverage), though they will have a smaller effect on the net upward LW flux below them.

77 Steven Emmerson said Scott E Strough @ 73, The possibility of reducing atmospheric CO2 levels to pre-industrial levels via Holistic Management has been addressed on RealClimate before.

Scott E Strough @ 73, The possibility of reducing atmospheric CO2 levels to pre-industrial levels via Holistic Management has been addressed on RealClimate before.

(By similar logic, increasing atmospheric optical thickness tends to increase the downward flux at the surface or any other level, and reduce the upward flux at TOA or any other level, but with exceptions due to inversions (layers with increasing temperature with height).

All of this is reason for everyone and his brother, aunt and sister to greatly reduce their own GHG emissions, and to scream bloody murder till every corporation, institution and governmental body they have any influence over to immediately institute policies to rapidly bring down GHG emissions and look at reliable ways of drawing down atmospheric CO2 levels directly (especially replanting grasslands in the north, tree planting toward the equator where albedo change is not an issue).

The 350 campaign is intent on sparking international movement platformed upon the target of reducing atmospheric CO2 levels to 350 parts per million, or the level scientists deem necessary to maintain human life on the planet as we know it.

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).

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.

More carbon dioxide should mean more vigorous growth, so more tree growth should start to reduce the atmospheric carbon levels.

Currently, cost and lack of technical maturity are factors limiting the deployment of carbon dioxide removal strategies for helping to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels.»

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).

As a result, global warming will continue to affect life on Earth for hundreds of years, even if greenhouse gas emissions are reduced and the increase in atmospheric levels halted.

That strong action be taken at all levels, including government, industry, and individuals to substantially reduce the current levels of greenhouse gas emissions and to mitigate the likely social and environmental effects of increasing atmospheric CO2.

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.

At 400 ppm the earth's atmosphere is in uncertain territory as some scientists and environmental groups recommend that — to achieve a stable climate — the atmospheric CO2 levels should be reduced to 350 ppm.

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.

United Nations negotiators struggle to get a global agreement for reducing the world's CO2 emissions, which would stabilise atmospheric CO2 level and keep the temperature rise below 2 °C.

C: increase in atmospheric CO2 from pre-industrial to present is anthropogenic (D / A) S: best guess for likely climate sensitivity (NUM) s: 2 - sigma range of S (NUM) a: ocean acidification will be a problem (D / A) L: expected sea level rise by 2100 in cm (all contributions)(NUM) B: climate change will be beneficial (D / A) R: CO2 emissions need to be reduced drastically by 2050 (D / A) T: technical advances will take care of any problems (D / A) r: the 20th century global temperature record is reliable (D / A) H: over the last 1000 years global temperature was hockey stick shaped (D / A) D: data has been intentionally distorted by scientist to support the idea of anthropogenic climate change (D / A) g: the CRU - mails are important for the science (D / A) G: the CRU - mails are important otherwise (D / A)

This replacement hypothesis is strongly opposed by the alarmists who regard CO2 as a «pollutant» whose emissions must be controlled supposedly to reduce the rate of growth of if not reduce atmospheric CO2 levels.

The problem is that atmospheric carbon is a finite resource and when you can build stuff for free with it people will quickly start reducing it to dangerously low levels.

Nations collectively to begin to reduce sharply global atmospheric emissions of greenhouse gases and absorbing aerosols, with the goal of urgently halting their accumulation in the atmosphere and holding atmospheric levels at their lowest practicable value;

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.

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.

The rise in atmospheric CO2 levels is, of course, not only attributable to the US ghg emissions, yet the United States has played a major blocking role in preventing international action on climate change up until the recent more constructive role of the Obama administration which recently made commitments before the December Paris meeting to reduce US CO2 emissions by 26 % to 28 % by 2025 below 2005 levels.

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.

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 of a nation on who it is willing to kill or greatly harm by their ghg emissions.

From spurring energy conservation to waste reduction and more, these tactics may yield meaningful opportunities to respond to climate change, especially as international negotiations to reduce atmospheric greenhouse - gas levels betray many people's hopes for a better future.

(Hansen et al 2008) To do this, existing atmospheric concentrations of CO2 must not only not be allowed to rise the small amount to 450 ppm CO2 from current levels of 394 ppm CO2 but must be reduced below existing levels to 350 ppm CO2.

This reduces the atmospheric pressure at sea level, leading to what is known as «cyclonic behaviour».

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.