Sentences with phrase «due to human»

It can only be explained by the increase in greenhouse gases due to human activities.

Millennials in the GOP are more likely than their elders to say the Earth is warming due to human activity, consistent with a 2017 Pew Research Center survey that used somewhat different question wording.

College graduates are more likely than those with less formal education to say that scientists generally agree the earth is getting warmer due to human activity.

Each week some natural phenomenon is presented as unnatural and by implication due to human activity.

More than 20 million people in the Midwest experience air quality that fails to meet national ambient air quality standards.14 Degraded air quality due to human - induced emissions66 and increased pollen season duration67 are projected to be amplified with higher temperatures, 68 and pollution and pollen exposures, in addition to heat waves, can harm human health (Ch.

Also, as we discussed in Section 4, the land in many urban areas near delta regions has been steadily subsiding, often due to human activity, e.g., groundwater extraction, irrigation.

The authors look closely at the claim of a «scientific consensus» that most of the climate change that occurred in the past 50 years was due to human activity and that future climate change will be dangerous.

Investigators outside NOAA are finding interesting trends and showing that they seem to be correlated with trends in such variables as SST [Sea Surface Temperature] in key regions, the changes of which almost certainly are due to human - induced changes in the climate, though having enough data to get all the statistics right is often problematic.

The summer - winter changes in insolation are much larger than those due to human - induced greenhouse gas changes; the seasonal change is mainly in the visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum while the greenhouse gas forcing is in the infrared; the greenhouse gas influence is global while the seasonal changes are opposite in the two hemispheres; and we have a much longer history of observing the seasonal changes, so a more or less correct prediction can be made empirically, without any physical understanding.

Similarly, a Pew Research Center survey of members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) found 93 % of members with a Ph.D. in Earth sciences (and 87 % of all members) say the Earth is warming mostly due to human activity.

The new survey finds three - quarters of Democrats and Democratic leaners believe the Earth is warming primarily due to human causes, compared with 26 % among their Republican counterparts.

The share of the public saying climate change is due to human activity is about the same as when last asked in a 2009 Pew Research survey, but more now say there is no solid evidence of warming (25 % today, up from 11 % in 2009) and fewer say that warming is occurring due to natural patterns in the environment (23 % today, down from 36 % in 2009).

The increasing abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to human activities is the direct cause of the recent global warming.

Nurtured by environmental hysteria and the determination to show all changes in the natural world are due to human activity, the claim CFCs were destroying ozone jumped directly from an unproven hypothesis to a scientific fact.

Interestingly, while independents were originally quite close to Democrats on this issue, they moved a bit closer to Republicans in this year's poll, with 55 % seeing global warming as more due to human activities.

«Nothing in their (Met Office) data leads me to think that global warming due to human influence has stopped, or is irrelevant.

And they can not adapt to the the rapid changes due to human caused climate change.

Fully 93 % of Democrats with high science knowledge say the Earth is warming due to human activity, compared with 71 % of Democrats with medium science knowledge and 49 % of those with low science knowledge.

«Most glacier melting during last 150 years can not be said to due to human CO2 emission, nor most of the measured increase in average temperature.»

Aerosols, or microscopic particles like soot or black carbon in the air, occur naturally but have also been increasing due to human activities since the industrial revolution.

These include eastern boundary current upwelling systems such as those off the U.S. west coast along coastal California, Oregon and Washington, deep - sea and subsurface oxygen minimum zones, and coastal waters that are already experiencing excess nutrient levels (eutrophication) and low dissolved oxygen (hypoxia) due to human - driven nutrient pollution from land - based activities.

Further, he makes the classic logical error of «begging the question» or assuming the proposition as part of the «proof» when he says Given that global warming is «unequivocal», and is «very likely» due to human activities to quote the 2007 IPCC report, in addition to the obvious argument from authority.

In my naive opinion, unless more than half the warming is due to human influence I don't see how anyone can argue to switch the null from natural warming to human influenced warming.

I say this because there are some who thinks that this CO2 - dependency is only getting stronger due to human outlet of CO2.

An increasing aerosol load due to human activities decreases regional air quality and the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface.

In your case, the ice cores must be wrong, in my case, there is no problem with ice core CO2 (neither with historical CO2 levels over the oceans), as the 0.3 K temperature increase in the period 1900 - 1950 causes an increase of about 0.9 ppmv CO2, which is within the accuracy of the ice core measurements, the rest of the observed increase is due to human emissions.

@Joseph — if AK had read the scientific literature, he'd know that the CO2 rise being due to human activity was a conclusion, not an assumption — political or otherwise.

This loss was due to both human and natural factors.

Obviously, the burden of proof is on the IPCC and activists like Trenberth to justify their claim that the warming is «very likely» due to human activities, which they have completely failed to do.

«We want to know, is this due to human induced greenhouse gasses, or natural variability?

The hypothesis postulated is that this is primarily due to human influence that will have net negative outcomes for humanity.

The Montreal Protocol was based on the false science that a variation in atmospheric ozone was due to human - produced CFCs.

In the main text of the paper he says «Given that global warming is «unequivocal», and is «very likely» due to human activities to quote the 2007 IPCC report, the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence.»

Given that global warming is «unequivocal», and is «very likely» due to human activities to quote the 2007 IPCC report, the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence.

«Given that global warming is «unequivocal», and is «very likely» due to human activities to quote the 2007 IPCC report, the null hypothesis should now be reversed... ``

Is the CO2 increase due to human emissions?

But researchers don't know what exactly is causing this shift in the Hadley cell, whether it's explicitly due to human - induced climate change and how long the shift may last.

And we know these effects are due to human influence.

Those who accept the consensus that the Earth is warming due to human activity (anthropogenic global warming or AGW) point to declining Arctic sea ice as one line of evidence to support this conclusion.

They simply hypothesize, model and assert that every observed weather phenomenon is due to human carbon - dioxide emissions.

Since 1951, Earth's climate has warmed by about 0.6 degrees Celsius, and researchers assessing the state of climate science for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are 95 percent certain that more than half of the warming is due to human emissions of greenhouse gases.

Since the 1860 ′ s nitrogen additions to the terrestrial biosphere have more than doubled, due to human activities.

Some question remains as to how much of the temporary slowdown in surface warming is due to human aerosol emissions, how much due to ENSO, how much due to heat being transferred to the deep oceans, and so forth.

-- Carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere due to human activity; — Carbon dioxide is an excellent infrared absorber, and therefore, its increasing presence in the atmosphere contributes to global warming; and — The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hundreds of years.

I can not read this differently, than that the existence of GW with the (possibly notable) A before it, somehow mandate «actions... necessary» due to human activity!

Maurice Strong's quote that it is our responsibility to get rid of the industrialized nations became the idea that global warming due to human production of CO2 was an ideal vehicle to achieve that goal.

Ultimately, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that most of the warming since 1951 has been due to human activities.

«Due to human activities such as the combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation, and the increased release of CO2 from the oceans due to the increase in the Earth's temperature, the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by about 35 % since the beginning of the age of industrialization.»

Many lines of evidence, including simple accounting, demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to human fossil fuel burning.

That's an increase of 39 % due to human emissions.