Sentences with phrase «not airborne fraction»

Not airborne fraction etc..

Not exact matches

@Moab, I'm not sure about that — you can smell oil, which suggests to me that some fraction of it is becoming airborne.

Since emissions in the last 40 years have been 3 times higher than in the period from 1924 to 1963 and 30 times higher than 1844 to 1883 it is not too hard to believe that the rapid growth in atmospheric partial pressure has forced such a change in airborne fraction

As far as we know, the «airborne fraction» (percentage of emitted CO2 remaining atmospheric) has not been changing greatly over the past century, and if any change is occurring, the fraction is perhaps increasing very slightly due to greater saturation of the oceanic sink.

That's why it's not implausible that the airborne fraction of anthropogenic might not be declining.

The model was not expected to be able to determine airborne fraction.

As Knorr did find, there is no sign that the increase in the atmosphere (the «airborne fraction») changed in ratio to the emissions, thus the sink rate didn't change in ratio too.

I have not the slightest problem with the notion that the airborne fraction of human emissions remains constant, but one shouldn't misinterprete the result: What remains in the atmosphere is a rather fixed percentage of the emissions in mass not of the original molecules.

It is shown that with those uncertainties, the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4 % per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero.

Sherlock matty; ok, if Ferdinand only means the last 160 years nature has been a net sink and there has been natural variation before I'll go with that but he still has 2 dominant unknowns in natural emissions and sinks; you can't deduce them from the increase or human emissions; and I may have missed his attitude towards Knorr which shows the airborne fraction of ACO2 constant; I must confess I have had my ups and downs with interpreting Knorr but I still think it shows that natural CO2, not ACO2, is contributing the bulk of the increase in CO2.

It simply isn't conceivable that a mere 55 % of human emissions, (after deducting the so called airborne fraction) offsets the entire absorption changes caused globally and naturally by warmer ocean surfaces.

Given the uncertainty in the airborne fraction of CO2 and possible non-CO2 gases, we can not rule out the two - thirds Russell sensitivity, but the full Russell sensitivity fits plausible PETM carbon sources much better, especially if the PETM warming is actually somewhat more than 5 °C (see figure 10 for quantitative implications).

to limit warming (from preindustrial) to 2 K, we can add about 130 Gt C to the atmosphere, which might correspond to 259 Gt C of emissions, give or take (324 Gt C or 216 Gt C, for airborne fraction of 40 % or 60 %, respectively (numbers chosen for illustrative purposes; I'm not saying that is the range to expect).