Sentences with phrase «human contribution so»

Human contribution so far to sea level rise does not seem particularly significant, given the early 20th century rate of sea level rise is about the same as the current rate.

Not exact matches

Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist at the US National Center for Atmospheric Research, told the Atlantic, «The human contribution can be up to 30 percent or so up to the total rainfall coming out of the storm.

A fair number of crowdfunding contributions are «impulse buys,» so a genuine human story that the audience can relate to, will grab their attention and convince them to contribute.

«He was an artist and she would bear his children and wash his clothes and care for him because there lay her immortality, there lay her own contribution to the great effort to speak the truth, to shape words, to write the novel that by existing would justify the human endeavor, an endeavor so clearly in need of justification,» she writes observing Doc Humes» wife.

What, then, is the course for the enlightened and conscientious pastor who is aware of the value of the Rogerian contribution and of the deep psychodynamic processes that so affect our human interaction?

So before I turn to those criticisms, let me briefly honor the genuine contributions to human and religious understanding made by modernity, and I provide you with only a partial list.

But because the task of redirecting human energies on this planet is so vast, and because we do have distinctive contributions, it is past time for us to join forces enthusiastically, and with firm commitment, with those who have given the leadership thus far.

For all his repet tions and inaccuraccy, he's not coming up with pseudo-sociobabble like someone just did that dismisses the contributions of any part of our military, so as annoyingly dense as he seems to be, there's hope for him as a human being yet.

So the death of Jesus has a definite contribution to make to God in terms of God's experience of the human capacity to receive as well as the divine capacity to be received, i.e., to have the gift that is offered actually received.

Even so, Hartshorne clearly has his own contribution to make toward solving even this first set of problems; and if his own theory of human experience is hardly as fully developed as certain others, its basic axioms are arguably more adequate because better founded in experience itself.

So when we look at the religious aspect of human existence and see what contributions process thought may have to make to this inescapable and indestructible manifestation of the human spirit, we shall need to emphasize that it is to be understood not in the wooden fashion that so often has prevailed in institutional churches and in conventional religious communities but as a matter of imaginative and aesthetic response to the human situation and to whatever is supremely worshipful in the cosmos — that is, to what religion calls «God.&raquSo when we look at the religious aspect of human existence and see what contributions process thought may have to make to this inescapable and indestructible manifestation of the human spirit, we shall need to emphasize that it is to be understood not in the wooden fashion that so often has prevailed in institutional churches and in conventional religious communities but as a matter of imaginative and aesthetic response to the human situation and to whatever is supremely worshipful in the cosmos — that is, to what religion calls «God.&raquso often has prevailed in institutional churches and in conventional religious communities but as a matter of imaginative and aesthetic response to the human situation and to whatever is supremely worshipful in the cosmos — that is, to what religion calls «God.»

Publication in peer - reviewed journals is how scientists communicate their results to the scientific community; it is also an enduring record of your small — or not - so - small — contribution to the vast pool of human knowledge.

Our current ability to predict the action of a given drug is so poor that even a small step forward would be a large contribution to reducing human suffering from disease.

So how might their function and contribution to human disorders be examined?

Still, a great portion of the «summary for policymakers» deals with the recent temperature rise, and it concludes that it's «likely» that there is a human contribution to the observed trend (by which I assume CO2 emissions are especially understood, even more so considered the negative forcings mentioned).

Rather than accept a future of low - skill, low - wage work for our impoverished young people, we aspire to build their «human capital» — their knowledge, skills, capabilities, talents, habits, character, however you want to phrase it — so that, among other things, the labor market will one day repay their contributions to society with a wage that far exceeds any minimums.

«Our nation needs the contributions of every person to help it thrive and progress, so we can not leave an ounce of human potential undeveloped.

So, the professionals have to carry out an in - depth research to make a remarkable contribution to various diverse fields, such as forensic, agriculture, biology, chemistry, molecular science, human / animal health, etc..

Or, check with your Human Resources Department to find out if your contribution is eligible - and if so, complete your company's Matching Gift Form and return it to us via email at [email protected] or by mail to 225 Baker Street (Attn: Development Office), Atlanta, GA 30313.

So we are within the range of normal up - and - down fluctuations without human greenhouse contributions that could be significant, or even measurable.

Item 8 could be confusing in having so many messages: «It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas... The best estimate of the human - induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period....

So it is very reasonable to assume that the contribution of human - produced CO2 levels to the ph change today in upwelled waters is thus (45 / 120) *.1 or.0375.

So how do the remaining uncertainties regarding the human contribution to GW, and that the impacts will be serious compare to those above?

It's hard to see anything shifting these coal trends unless and until other energy choices become as cheap and convenient, or countries are kicked so hard by climate disruption that they realize the value of a global push to limit the human contribution to warming exceeds the economic value of abundant fossil energy.

The human contribution is even so undetectable in hourly measurements: even if every part should stay in the atmosphere, the increase at 8 GtC / 4 ppmv per year is undetectable in a day by day measurement.

If so, does that information seperate forrest fire contrfibutions ffrom human contributions?

So it seems to me that the simple way of communicating a complex problem has led to several fallacies becoming fixed in the discussions of the real problem; (1) the Earth is a black body, (2) with no materials either surrounding the systems or in the systems, (3) in radiative energy transport equilibrium, (4) response is chaotic solely based on extremely rough appeal to temporal - based chaotic response, (5) but at the same time exhibits trends, (6) but at the same time averages of chaotic response are not chaotic, (7) the mathematical model is a boundary value problem yet it is solved in the time domain, (8) absolutely all that matters is the incoming radiative energy at the TOA and the outgoing radiative energy at the Earth's surface, (9) all the physical phenomena and processes that are occurring between the TOA and the surface along with all the materials within the subsystems can be ignored, (10) including all other activities of human kind save for our contributions of CO2 to the atmosphere, (11) neglecting to mention that if these were true there would be no problem yet we continue to expend time and money working on the problem.

It is reasonable to theorize that some human contribution is responsible for the increase in strong hurricanes in the Atlantic since 1970, since this increase does correlate so well with the observed increase in sea surface temperatures.

The human contribution to climate change succeeds on this basis often enough that it is probably true, regardless of how many scientists polled think so.

The article opined, «The evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument.»

This is the rationale of the IPCC: the amount of antropogenic warming is a given (models), so the less warming, the more the human contribution, in %.

The way I understand Murry's brief presentation is that he has found that natural variations in the carbon cycle are so large that the human contribution is pretty much irrelevant.

On these figures the human contribution could be easily cancelled out by a very slight increase in oceanic absorption rates so the present setup should be regarded as temporary.

Or is the argument that the carbon cycle is so big that any part of human contributions which may end up in the atmosphere are negligible?

E.g., research assumes greenhouse gas emissions cause warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause»... carbon sequestration in soil is important for mitigating global climate change» (4a) No position Does not address or mention the cause of global warming (4b) Uncertain Expresses position that human's role on recent global warming is uncertain / undefined «While the extent of human - induced global warming is inconclusive...» (5) Implicit rejection Implies humans have had a minimal impact on global warming without saying so explicitly E.g., proposing a natural mechanism is the main cause of global warming»... anywhere from a major portion to all of the warming of the 20th century could plausibly result from natural causes according to these results» (6) Explicit rejection without quantification Explicitly minimizes or rejects that humans are causing global warming»... the global temperature record provides little support for the catastrophic view of the greenhouse effect» (7) Explicit rejection with quantification Explicitly states that humans are causing less than half of global warming «The human contribution to the CO2 content in the atmosphere and the increase in temperature is negligible in comparison with other sources of carbon dioxide emission»»

So I would say that rational human beings — and I believe most of human society is rational — realize the value of the IPCC and the contribution that we have made over the years.

Norm is feeling guilty by his association with Big Oil so of course he is trying to marginalize the contribution of humans to the CO2 increase.

Global Environmental Change General Contributions II, starting at 1:40 pm, I'll be examining the null hypothesis that humans are not the cause of the rise in temperature that happens to merely correlate by pure accident so perfectly with the rise in population and the CDIAC's 250 years of fossil fuel consumption records.

Phil Shiner of Public Interest Lawyers has been celebrated by fellow lawyers and, for his contribution in exposing serious human rights abuses that would otherwise been hidden, rightly so — but he also became a hate figure, the Mail ran a front page story claiming Shiner had «caused anger and revulsion».

It sets out a vision of the substantial contribution that we hope the new National Representative Body will play over the next generation in order to ensure that our cultures and our human rights are respected and protected, and so that our children can truly enjoy equal life chances to all other Australians.