Sentences with phrase «stabilize atmospheric concentrations»

The science is clear: Global warming and climate disruption will continue to accelerate until we stabilize atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.

As we have seen above, to stabilize atmospheric concentrations at levels that will avoid dangerous climate change the entire world will need to peak its emissions in the next few years followed by emissions reductions at hard to imagine rates over the next 30 years.

Given the growing urgency of the need to rapidly reduce global greenhouse gas emissions and the hard - to - imagine magnitude of global emissions reductions needed to stabilize atmospheric concentrations at reasonably safe levels, the failure of many engaged in climate change controversies to see the practical significance of understanding climate change as an ethical problem must be seen as a huge human tragedy.

In the following chart the colored lines represent emissions reduction pathways that would stabilize atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide equivalents at various levels.

Given how much effort will be required to merely stabilize atmospheric concentrations of CO2 alone at 1,000 ppm (discussed below), I think it is very safe to say that total business - as - usual warming is at least 6.3 °C and that 5.5 °C is conservative.

The science is clear: Global warming and climate disruption will continue to accelerate until we stabilize atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.

But this also means that targets such as stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of CO2 at 450 parts per million (nearly double preindustrial levels) to avoid more than a 3.6 degree F (2 degree C) temperature rise are nearly impossible as well.

Stabilizing atmospheric concentrations requires emissions to fall to the net removal rate.

Of course, if you're serious about stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, achieving the American goal in 2020 is just step one in what would have to be a centurylong 12 - step (or more) program to completely decouple global energy use from processes that generate heat - trapping emissions.

Stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gas emissions will require a reduction in global emissions of at least 80 % below 1990 levels by 2050.

But this requirement does nothing to stabilize the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases.

In the figure, the IPCC (2007) forecast of 2 °C to 3 °C warming by 2100 is based on stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of CO2 around 550 ppm (a doubling from pre-industrial levels of 280), up from 385 today.

Stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will require a radical transformation of the global energy system over coming decades.

Stabilizing atmospheric concentrations at levels that will avoid dangerous climate change requires immediate action.

It will take decades or longer to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to zero — the only way to stabilize its atmospheric concentration.

Nor are the commitments that have been made even remotely consistent with stabilizing atmospheric concentrations at anywhere close to 2 degrees Celsius, much less 1.5.

Speaking of unfinished business, towards the end of last month I posted a couple of comments refuting raypierre's contention that to stabilize the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide at 450 ppm, emissions must drop to near zero.

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.

Stable atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases would lead to continued warming, but if carbon dioxide emissions could be eliminated entirely, temperatures would quickly stabilize or even decrease over time.

The letter notes that «Stable atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases would lead to continued warming, but if carbon dioxide emissions could be eliminated entirely, temperatures would quickly stabilize or even decrease over time.

While there are possibilities of storage in wells and deep in the ocean, stabilizing the atmospheric CO2 concentration would require gathering up the equivalent of 1 to 2 times the world's existing above ground vegetation and putting it down abandoned oil wells or deep in the ocean.

If we manage to stabilize CO2 levels at 450 ppmv (the atmospheric CO2 concentration as of 2010 is about 390 ppmv), according to the best estimate, we have a probability of less than 50 % of meeting the 2 °C target.

According to a conversation I had with Hansen, the reason atmospheric concentration stabilizes is that the ocean sink, that is currently sinking about half of our CO2 emissions, keeps sinking CO2 at around that level so that as we lower emissions at 3 % / year (about 50 % in 20 years) the oceans are sinking most of our emissions and, therefore, keeping atmospheric concentrations stable.

In 2002, the president said: «I reaffirm America's commitment to the United Nations Framework Convention and its central goal, to stabilize atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations at a level that will prevent dangerous human interference with the climate.»

«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»

on the need to stabilize atmospheric GHG concentrations, even as global energy use continues to grow.

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 report demonstrates that stabilizing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations will require deep reductions in the amount of carbon dioxide emitted.

This reduction will stabilize atmospheric CO2 concentrations below 400 parts per million, limiting the future rise in temperature.

Between 2000 and 2007, atmospheric methane concentrations appeared to stabilize, leading to sustained debate regarding the main drivers of atmospheric methane.

A study of stomatal frequency in fossil leaves from Holocene lake deposits in Denmark, showing that 9400 years ago CO2 atmospheric level was 333 ppmv, and 9600 years ago 348 ppmv, falsify the concept of stabilized and low CO2 air concentration until the advent of industrial revolution [13].

Early participation by developing countries is urgent if the goal is to rapidly stabilize atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations.

Economists and climate scientists have developed a number of models to estimate global emissions prices that are consistent with ultimately stabilizing atmospheric CO2 concentrations at these target levels and minimizing the global burden of mitigation costs over time.

The numbers on the boxes on these two lines specify the probability of exceeding 2 °C if atmospheric concentration levels are stabilized at these levels.

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.

And The Economist also seems blissfully unaware that stabilizing anywhere near 450 ppm atmospheric concentration of CO2 would require immediate and sustained action to replace the world's fossil fuel system with one based on carbon - free energy — precisely the kind of aggressive action this piece seems designed to undercut.

Studies that model natural gas as a bridge, such as one conducted by Michael Levi of the Council on Foreign Relations, find it could help stabilize atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

and, (d) Whether those causing climate change have obligations to act now because if the world waits to act until all uncertainties are resolved it will likely be too late to prevent catastrophic impacts to others and to stabilize greenhouse gas atmospheric concentrations at safe levels?

As we have previously explained in EthicsandClimate.org there is now a scientific consensus that developed countries must limit their ghg emissions by as much as 25 % to 40 % below 1990 emissions levels by 2020 and between 80 % and 95 % below1990 levels by 2050 to have any reasonable chance of avoiding dangerous climate change which would require atmospheric ghg concentrations to be stabilized at 450 ppm.

For perspective, the Waxman - Markey bill aimed to help achieve the Copenhagen climate treaty goal of stabilizing atmospheric CO2 - equivalent greenhouse gas concentrations at 450 parts per million by 2050.82 A NAAQS requiring states to make a proportionate contribution83 to CO2 stabilization at 350 parts per million and other greenhouse gases at pre-industrial levels in five to ten years would cause the United States to become a single non-attainment area, and the Clean Air Act would function as a no - growth mandate, contradicting a core purpose of the Act: protecting the «productive capacity» of the population.84

The science is, purportedly, too uncertain to take steps to stabilize emissions as there are opposing theories as to why the climate is changing, differences in opinion as to how atmospheric concentrations of GHGs will affect the climate and various viewpoints on whether changes will be good or bad; beneficial or dangerous.

With the atmospheric concentrations of GHGs thus unlikely to stabilize in this century (even for the low SRES scenario) without major policy changes, from an emissions perspective, we are not on track for meeting the objectives of UNFCCC Article 2.

«In the 1990's, the progressives running many of the world's western nations embarked on a path to use the threat of dangerous anthropogenic climate change to centralize power in their governments by claiming the need to stabilize the concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases»

[In the 1990's, the progressives running many of the world's western nations embarked on a path to use the threat of dangerous anthropogenic climate change to centralize power in their governments by claiming the need to stabilize the concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases, which was codified by the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) treaty.]

The letter notes that «Stable atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases would lead to continued warming, but if carbon dioxide emissions could be eliminated entirely, temperatures would quickly stabilize or even decrease over time.

Stable atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases would lead to continued warming, but if carbon dioxide emissions could be eliminated entirely, temperatures would quickly stabilize or even decrease over time.

They concluded that it is not possible to stabilize atmospheric CO2 concentrations and meet global energy needs «without drastic technological breakthroughs.»