Sentences with phrase «correlation with emissions»

I look forwards to seeing if Salby addresses the correlation with emissions or just ignores it.

Not exact matches

Although it is not surprising to see some correlation between frequency of unloadings and higher annual emissions, the study's findings indicate that wells with a high frequency of unloadings have annual emissions that are 10 or more times as great as wells that unload less frequently.

We aim to determine the level of near - infrared exozodiacal dust emission around a sample of 42 nearby main sequence stars with spectral types ranging from A to K and to investigate its correlation with various stellar parameters and with the presence of cold dust belts.

A large fraction of the galaxies also exhibit H2 rotational line and ionic fine - structure line emissions, which have no significant correlation with the PAH emissions.

To test for a correlation between magnetic activity and photometric variability, we searched for H$ \ alpha $ emission among eight L3 $ - $ T2 ultra-cool dwarfs with extensive previous photometric monitoring, some of which are known to be variable at 3.6 $ \ mu $ m or 4.5 $ \ mu $ m.

What's more important than any records being set is the pattern of warming and cooling we've seen over the last 100 years or so, and that pattern is NOT consistent with a correlation between warming and CO2 emissions.

If we can find no consistent correlation between TSI and temperatures during the Eighteenth and Nineteenth centuries, when CO2 emissions were clearly not yet a factor, then the «correlation» some have claimed to have found during the early 20th century is almost certainly an artifact, i.e., a fluke, with no real significance.

Together, a basic Pearson correlation coefficient yields statistically significant results, indicating that CO2 emissions are having a real statistical association with the increase in global temperatures.

A similar occurrence of decreasing global temperatures with rapidly increasing CO2 emissions took place during the 33 years from 1942 to 1975 (the 70's global cooling scare) so the stated correlation of increased CO2 emissions with global warming never actually existed.

In short, since 1997 there has been neither any global warming nor any enhancement of the greenhouse effect to cause it in the first place, and with no possible correlation between increased CO2 emissions and global warming; there is simply no scientific basis for the for the ludicrous concept that fossil fuel derived CO2 emissions are or could even cause catastrophic global warming!

Annual emissions show very little correlation with annual changes in concentration.

Surely until you have the answer to these questions you simply have a graph showing correlation of warming with increases of CO2 emissions, don't you?

My only remaining skepticism had to do with the use of this simple correlation for predicting the future «to within a millikelvin»: namely, that the correlation ignored two real constraints on future atmospheric CO2 increase, from human emissions upon which the entire correlation is based.

The correlation of emission metrics with most likely peak warming rate.

One further issue you need to explain is why CO2 is still increasing in virtually perfect correlation with mans emissions even though you guys argue that heating has stopped for 15/16 years.

We show in figure 2 that cumulative emissions to the time of peak warming are tightly correlated with peak CO2 - induced warming for the case with no emissions floors, and here we investigate whether emissions floors affect this correlation.

No period of warming matches in correlation with mans emissions the rise in CO2.

Based on the metrics presented in figure 2, we conclude that, for cases with no emissions floor, the strongest correlation across all pathways occurs between peak warming and the cumulative emissions from pre-industrial times to the time of that peak warming, as shown in figure 2a.

BTW I did do the correlation of CO2 with fossil fuel emissions.

=== > The continuous growth of cumulative CO2 emissions over the entire span since 1850 has likely zero correlation with the constant acceleration / deceleration of natural climate temperature trends - CO2's impact on the trends is demonstrably minimal

The overall correlation is a result of the fact that climate policy induces systemic changes in the energy system, away from technologies with high greenhouse gas emission levels, which also have high emissions of air pollutants (e.g. coal use without CCS has high emission levels of CO2, but also of SO2).

Note that while the BEST approach is based on correlations, they are correlations of variables with known causal relationships (i.e. an increased greenhouse effect is known to cause global warming), although they do not appear to have considered some important influences like human aerosol emissions or the El Niño Southern Oscillation.

This is probably a point where you and I agree: namely that human CO2 emissions have a correlation with atmospheric CO2 levels on a multi-annual basis, even though the relation is not clear on a year - to - year basis, where between 15 % and 90 % of the emitted CO2 «remains» in the atmosphere., with this averaging out to around 50 % over the longer tem.

ANSWER: Observations are the time series T (t), [CO2](t) and emissions (t); as d [CO2] natural (t) / dt correlates with T (t) and as no other correlation is (mathematically) allowed (by statistical tests) then the [CO2 natural] is, as shown as well on figure 17 - B, a consequence of the past temperatures (their time integral) and can not be their cause.

Your correlation between temp change and the natural climate forces is also in very good correlation with Hans Roslins.If you add the number of individuals prospering from UHI effects it correlates perfectly with your graph and also not surprisingly with CO2 emissions.

I have a hard time reconciling this 99 % correlation with the fact that human emissions must have added some amount of CO2 to the atmosphere.

In comparing annual human CO2 emissions with annual increase in atmospheric CO2, it was always a mystery to me why human CO2 emissions showed such a poor correlation with changes in atmospheric CO2 levels if human emissions were supposed to be driving the atmospheric levels, but his lecture explains this very clearly.

Salby was just busting the correlation with the known stead human emissions against the varying 0 to double annual co2 increment.

I think you will find that correlations of CO2 with natural causes are much higher than to anthropogenic emissions.

Salby says that since anthropogenic emission does not correlate with temperature, the rise must be due to other emission that does correlate, and he goes on to quantify how much of the emission can be explained by this other emission based on that correlation.

«The correlation of changes in d13C with ENSO events and the comparison with a simple model of a series of cascades suggest that the changes in d13C in the atmosphere have little to do with the input of CO2 emissions from the continuous use of fossil fuels.»

On a year - to - year basis there is absolutely no correlation between human CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 levels: the amount of human CO2 «staying» in the atmosphere swings between 15 and 88 percent of that emitted by humans, with a multi-year average of just under 50 %.

It does make more sense that a long period of atmospheric cooling would lead to a lowering of sea level, but that correlation has NOTHING to do with CO2 emissions, which were skyrocketing while global temperatures either fell or remained steady.

What Lansner shows is that CO2 does not just follow temperature; while temperature drags CO2 up in a way Severinghaus notes the interesting effect is what happens when temperature drops; at that time there is no correlation with CO2; this is also demonstrated in the 20thC as the lack of any correlation between temperature, CO2 levels and emissions is apparent: