Sentences with phrase «same emission scenarios»

the upward trend is based on the same emission scenarios of the IPCC.

«This is more than 50 percent higher than the old projections (18 - 59 cm)[in its last assessment in 2007 - AR4] when comparing the same emission scenarios and time periods,» notes Stefan Rahmstorf, Head of Earth System Analysis at Potsdam University, Germany, and a leading authority on sea level rise.

This is more than 50 % higher than the old projections (18 — 59 cm) when comparing the same emission scenarios and time periods.

This is more than 50 % higher than the old projections (18 - 59 cm) when comparing the same emission scenarios and time periods.

This is slightly higher than the IPCC's estimate under the same emissions scenario of 7 cm by 2100.

2: Our Changing Climate, Key Message 5).2 Regional climate models (RCMs) using the same emissions scenario also project increased spring precipitation (9 % in 2041 - 2062 relative to 1979 - 2000) and decreased summer precipitation (by an average of about 8 % in 2041 - 2062 relative to 1979 - 2000) particularly in the southern portions of the Midwest.12 Increases in the frequency and intensity of extreme precipitation are projected across the entire region in both GCM and RCM simulations (Figure 18.6), and these increases are generally larger than the projected changes in average precipitation.12, 2

That is, there's new evidence that shows the world is probably going to warm more slowly than the models have heretofore suggested (for the same emissions scenario).

This is slightly higher than the IPCC's estimate under the same emissions scenario of 7 cm by 2100.

But a direct comparison is made possible by table 13.6 of the report, which allows a comparison of old and new projections for the same emissions scenario (the moderate A1B scenario) over the time interval 1990 - 2100 (*).

Not exact matches

The study also found that, although transmitting coal power was slightly more effective at reducing air pollution impacts than simply replacing old coal power plants with newer, cleaner ones in the east, both coal scenarios had approximately the same carbon emissions.

To get a sense for how this probability, or risk of such a storm, will change in the future, he performed the same analysis, this time embedding the hurricane model within six global climate models, and running each model from the years 2081 to 2100, under a future scenario in which the world's climate changes as a result of unmitigated growth of greenhouse gas emissions.

By using simulations that were created by running the same model multiple times, with only tiny differences in the initial starting conditions, the scientists could examine the range of summertime temperatures we might expect in the future for the «business - as - usual» and reduced - emissions scenarios.

This effectively gave a much greater weight to the high emission (A1) scenarios compared with scenarios in the other families that the SRES authors elected not to explore in the same detail, and led to a significant upward bias in the probability distribution.

Scenarios A, B, and C are the same model, but with different forcings (different greenhouse gas emissions forecasts).

Question: If we do model future temperatures based on CO2 emission scenarios, then how can we target a future temperature without targeting CO2 emissions at the same time?

First, Hansens A, B and C are not models, but emission scenarios that are fed into the same model.

This has implications for future scenario's, as a lower sensitivity for CO2 (and a higher for solar) means that there will be less warming for the same CO2 emissions (assuming no large excursions of solar).

Pessimist: «The worst case scenario for methane is the same as our CO2 emissions, except that once the emissions really get started it will be impossible to stop them.

IPCC makes all sorts of calculations on the deleterious effects of NOT halting CO2 emissions, based on the same climate sensitivity estimate and a bunch of model «scenarios» on CO2 increase.

The latest IEA Reference Scenario (that in WEO 2005) shows the same increase in CO2 emissions between 2000 and 2030 — the end - point of the projection — as the IPCC B1 sScenario (that in WEO 2005) shows the same increase in CO2 emissions between 2000 and 2030 — the end - point of the projection — as the IPCC B1 scenarioscenario.

Alarmists would like to eat the cake, and to have it at the same time: when pressed why temperature didn't go up according to scenario A, they say emissions, even without drastic cuts, were lower than projected.

Figure B shows the response of the same simple model to the lowest of the emissions scenarios considered in 1992 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

• For the same real cost increase to 2050 (i.e. 15 %), BAU gives a 21 % increase in emissions c.f. the nuclear option a 77 % decrease in emissions (compare scenarios 1 and 3)

If emissions continue for the rest of the century at the same rate as over the last decade we would end up with about 578ppm by 2100, even before we allow for increases in population and GDP, so that best case scenario is slightly worse than your worst case scenario.

At the same time, the uncertainty range for any given scenario family is also substantial, as indicated by the range of 2100 emissions for the A1, A2, and B1 scenario families in Figure 5 - 5.

Models predict that the same summertime temperatures that ranked among the top 5 % in 1950 — 1979 will occur at least 70 % of the time by 2035 — 2064 in the U.S. if global emissions of greenhouse gases grow at a moderate rate (as modeled under the IPCC SRES A2 scenario).

Should clarify: do the CO2 emissions of the additional conventional capacity increase by the same percentage as the capacity increases in a scenario where the share of renewables (namely wind and solar) increases too?

In the final scenario, for the same level of expenditure, investment in HELE would achieve a similar level of CO2 emissions reduction to the deployment of renewables in Europe, while generating up to three times more electricity.

The SDS has the same emissions profile as the IEA's Copenhagen - era 450 Scenario (450S), which gives only a 50 percent chance of keeping warming below 2 degrees Celsius (Figure ES - 3).

The RCPs should be based on scenarios published in the existing literature, developed independently by different modeling groups and, as a set, be «representative» of the total literature, in terms of emissions and concentrations (see further in this section); At the same time, each of the RCPs should provide a plausible and internally consistent description of the future;

The study finds that the cumulative costs, including transmission, are essentially the same for both a business - as - usual scenario and a scenario that cuts CO2 emissions from power plants by 42 percent and achieves 30 percent renewable energy by 2030.

In the case of the SRES, the emissions trajectories were the same whether economic activities in the four scenario families were measured in MER or PPP.

The scenarios include: «business as usual» (BAU), which assumes no mitigation efforts are made («RCP8.5»); «mitigation», which assumes an intermediate level of emissions («RCP4.5») without negative emissions; «carbon dioxide removal» («CDR»), which assumes moderate emissions with long - term CO2 removal; and «solar radiation management» («SRM»), which is the same as the CDR pathway, but also includes enough SRM to limit temperatures to 1.5 C above pre-industrial levels by 2100.

This makes it a wash, and their warming rate for different emission scenarios ends up being about the same as the IPCC's.

Projected global average temperature rise above pre-industrial levels under a range of future scenarios, «business as usual» (BAU), which assumes no mitigation efforts are made (RCP8.5); «mitigation», which assumes moderate emissions (RCP4.5) without negative emissions, «carbon dioxide removal» (CDR), which assumes moderate emissions with long - term CO2 removal; and «solar radiation management» (SRM), which is the same as the CDR pathway but also includes enough SRM to limit temperatures to 1.5 C by 2100.

The actual temperature trend was essentially the same as Hansen's «Scenario C», which assumed total phase - out of GHG emissions from 1990 to 2000

«With some level of warming and sea level rise already in the pipeline no matter what we do, we won't see a reduction in impacts or even a sudden levelling - off — impacts are projected to increase at the same rate in all scenarios for the next couple of decades or so, and after that they merely increase more slowly in the deep emissions cuts scenarios,» Betts told Mongabay.

GDP impacts are the same (+0.55 %) in the 40 % scenario and in more ambitious scenarios with higher emissions cuts and targets for energy savings and renewables

Isn't the end result on a larger timescale basically the same (once anthropogenic carbon emission stops and a new equilibrium is reached), since roughly equal amounts of carbon are released in both scenarios?

3) The predictions plotted were based on the A2 emissions scenario, which is close to, but not exactly the same as, the real CO2 evolution.

Say I have data on average precipitation for the last 30 years in the Southwest United States, as well as simulations from 20 different climate models of current and future precipitation in the same region, and I want to know what the expected change in precipitation will be at the end of this century under a specific emissions scenario.

If the emissions of these gases were to continue to increase as in the IS92a scenario, then CO2 levels would have to be reduced by about 95 ppm to maintain the same level of climate change in these experiments.

Also, not only do I refuse to accept an either / or mentality (we could try politically to get all the nations in the world to work together to cut emissions, and we could try to preserve some portion of humanity in space, at the same time), I also feel that the research done could be complementary and applicable in many different scenarios.

They are intended to be scenario simulations, illustrating the response of the climate system to a range of different emission scenarios, with all other factors (like volcanoes, solar, landcover) remaining the same (although some models are starting to put in interactive vegetation).