Sentences with phrase «current human emissions»

My real point was that the CO2 levels in geological time scales are not really comparable to current human emissions - because on geological time scales there is a removal process.

So, slow when compared to the raging 10 gigaton per year pace of current human emissions, but fast when compared to about practically anything else in geological history.

The amounts of carbon would be vast, on a scale comparable to current human emissions.

A 2011 survey of 41 Arctic researchers found that rapidly reducing human greenhouse emissions would limit the volume of carbon feedback from the Arctic to 10 % of the annual current human emission (or about 1 billion tons of carbon per year) by the end of the 21rst Century, but continue that emission for centuries to come (current Arctic carbon emissions are likely in the range of 30 million tons of methane and 100 million tons of CO2 each year).

Not exact matches

On the current trajectory, greenhouse gas emissions from cars, trains, ships and airplanes may become one of the greatest drivers of human - induced climate change, according to a draft of the forthcoming U.N. fifth assessment report on mitigation of climate change.

«Less than two decades ago, the ratio of human to natural emissions was 0.59 to 1, or less than half the current level,» Schlesinger said.

But based on that data, they estimate that emissions from abandoned wells represents as much as 10 percent of methane from human activities in Pennsylvania — about the same amount as caused by current oil and gas production.

As well as being a major contributor to human - induced greenhouse gas emissions, current livestock production has other environmental impacts.

In one, emissions of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds from human activities would continue at current levels through 2050.

Human emissions are the majority source of warming in this current climate change and that continued use of fossil fuels will lead to catastrophic change too quickly for us to adapt to.

While, in theory, human activities have the potential to result in net cooling, a concern about 25 years ago, the current balance between greenhouse gas emissions and the emissions of particulates and particulate - formers is such that essentially all of today's concern is about net warming.

It certainly isn't accepted science that changes in grazing methodology can miitgate against current and foreseen human CO2 emissions.

Inversely, if human greenhouse emissions bore most of the responsibility for the current warming, cutting them would be a tremendous help.

wilt, the paper you cite describes what in their view is a «small but statistically significant effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation, which in no way invalidates the large and significant effects of human emissions on the current anthropogenic radiative forcing budget of the atmosphere.

A similar temperature change may be expected between the LIA and current, be it that the expected ~ 10 ppmv CO2 change is overwhelmed by human emissions.

First, as I said above, the veracity of those arguments depends, to some extent, on the ratio of positive and negative externalities, as they relate to non-climate related impacts but also w / r / t the range of sensitivity to ACO2 emissions and the unknowable pace of technological development (that to some degree is affected by the groundwork laid by current - day investment of human capital, intellect, resources, and finances).

We see many problems with the current market systems under the convention, volatile credit prices, lack of real emissions reduction, rampant lack of additionality, lack of environmental integrity and human rights violations.

... it has been shown by the US Geological Survey that current emissions from volcanoes are being dwarfed by human emissions to a ratio of 1/130...

«His current research shows human emissions contribute less than 18 ppm to the present 410 ppm, and, therefore, do not cause climate change.»

Testable version of Null Hypothesis popular in recent years: If humans do not change current CO2 emission rates, the earth climate will experience a «hockey stick» increase in temperature.

Suffice it to say that there are indications that at least a major part of the current sea ice retreat is due to naturally occurring shifts in weather patterns, rather than simply to Arctic swarming caused by human GHG emissions, as some people apparently believe.

Karlsson claims that «human emissions of carbon dioxide and other anthropogenic greenhouse gases is [sic] a substantial influence on the current warming trend.»

Most worrisome, if humanity stays near its current path of greenhouse gas emissions, the IPCC warns with «high confidence» that «the combination of high temperature and humidity in some areas for parts of the year is projected to compromise normal human activities, including growing food or working outdoors.»

According to a new study published last week in Nature Geoscience, at current emission rates the trillionth ton of CO2 from human activity would be thrown into the atmosphere in about 30 years.

Our current research focuses on how changes in emissions of these compounds or their precursors influence climate, how changes in climate influence both emissions and atmospheric lifetimes of these compounds, and how changes in their abundance in the atmosphere influences society by affecting human health and ecosystem productivity.

Current air monitoring efforts in the region are more targeted toward measuring compliance with provincial regulations; however, significant questions remain regarding the emissions from point and non-point sources, the chemical transformation of these emissions in the atmosphere, their long - range transport and their effects on the ecosystem and human health.

-- Others indicated that the observed current lack of warming despite unabated human GHG emissions falsified the premise that AGW is a major factor (the CAGW premise of IPCC)[red]

Personally, I'd prefer two (0r more) pdfs: one showing the historical contribution of all human emissions to current temperature change since 1750 (or 1970?)

As a result of past and current human greenhouse gas emissions, we have already locked in a substantial and significant rate of Arctic carbon emission feedback.

The current total of 300 GtC human emissions adds less than 1 % to the carbon reservoir in the deep oceans, and ultimately that is all what returns if everything is back in equilibrium.

At the current carbon emissions rate of more than 10 billion tons each year and growing at around 2 percent, humans will have emitted a trillion tons of carbon by 2041.

Based on this empirical climate science, it would be safe to conclude that current climate changes are predominantly driven by natural forces, not human CO2 trace gas emissions.»

Needless to say, global warming from human CO2 emissions is an exceptional yawner, and is in no sense a current legitimate threat when viewed in the context of recent climate history.

Although the reason for this disparity is unclear, one speculation is that the sample of respondents in the current study was more heterogenous in terms of political views than the sample in Study 1, perhaps incorporating a greater proportion of political conservatives who are known to be less likely to accept that human GHG emissions are causing anthropogenic global warming than political liberals or moderates [38]--[42].

To date, while various effects and feedbacks constrain the certainty placed on recent and projected climate change (EG, albedo change, the response of water vapour, various future emissions scenarios etc), it is virtually certain that CO2 increases from human industry have reversed and will continue to reverse the downward trend in global temperatures that should be expected in the current phase of the Milankovitch cycle.

The hypothesis that the overwhelming current climate forcing factor is human GHG emissions has already been falsified, if not by the temperature trend 1945 — 1975 (such as it is), then by that of the past 18 years.

However, in this current warming episode, the increase in CO2 is largely due to human emissions from the burning of oil, coal, and gas (IPCC Fifth Assessment Report).

They have told the public, politicians, and the press that «global warming» (alias «climate change») is primarily due to human - caused emissions of carbon dioxide, and that if this continues at current levels that this will result in catastrophic global warming.

Do these models also predict the current nine years of cooling or when the 2ppmv annual increase in CO2 concentrarion will once again cause catastropic global warming as predicted by the models in the IPCC 2001TAR which predicted the non existant warming from human sourced CO2 emissions over the past ten years that never happened?

This means that there is no validity to the comment that this is «still considerably smaller than the estimated rise in temperatures from a continuation of current CO2 emission rates» especially considering the fact that CO2 emissions from humans are definitely not the prime source of the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

However you slice it, lolwot, there is a current «pause» (or «standstill») in the warming of the «globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature anomaly» (used by IPCC to measure «global warming»), despite unabated human GHG emissions and CO2 levels (Mauna Loa) reaching record levels.

However, since this cycle takes hundreds of years, it could be that the current slow and small change in pH in the near surface waters since 1700 is due to the Medieval Warm Period rather than human co2 emissions.

If true this would be good news, because our current efforts to reduce global human CO2 emissions have been woefully inadequte.

However, there are a number of lines of evidence that have helped to convince climate scientists that the current global warming can be attributed to human greenhouse gas emissions (in particular CO2).

«Current understanding indicates that even if there was a complete cessation of emissions of CO2 today from human activity, it would take several millennia for CO2 concentrations to return to preindustrial concentrations»

«Climate science» as it is used by warmists implies adherence to a set of beliefs: (1) Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations will warm the Earth's surface and atmosphere; (2) Human production of CO2 is producing significant increases in CO2 concentration; (3) The rate of rise of temperature in the 20th and 21st centuries is unprecedented compared to the rates of change of temperature in the previous two millennia and this can only be due to rising greenhouse gas concentrations; (4) The climate of the 19th century was ideal and may be taken as a standard to compare against any current climate; (5) global climate models, while still not perfect, are good enough to indicate that continued use of fossil fuels at projected rates in the 21st century will cause the CO2 concentration to rise to a high level by 2100 (possibly 700 to 900 ppm); (6) The global average temperature under this condition will rise more than 3 °C from the late 19th century ideal; (7) The negative impact on humanity of such a rise will be enormous; (8) The only alternative to such a disaster is to immediately and sharply reduce CO2 emissions (reducing emissions in 2050 by 80 % compared to today's rate) and continue further reductions after 2050; (9) Even with such draconian CO2 reductions, the CO2 concentration is likely to reach at least 450 to 500 ppm by 2100 resulting in significant damage to humanity; (10) Such reductions in CO2 emissions are technically feasible and economically affordable while providing adequate energy to a growing world population that is increasingly industrializing.

The results of this study are consistent with the wide body of evidence supporting the settled science that human greenhouse gas emissions are the dominant cause of the current global warming.

See: http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel2331/maps.shtml The current net sink / source balance is exactly known from the mass balance: that is the difference between increase in the atmosphere and human emissions.

«Humans added plenty greenhouse gases before industrialisation» The author's quote methane emissions annually were greater during the Roman Period than that of all the current world landfill sites.

It is faithfully reported as 66 % of climate scientists practicing in the field who believe half or more of the current warming is caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases.