Sentences with phrase «effect of human»

Schachar, Davila, Pierscionek, Chen, and Ward, «The effect of human in vivo accommodation on crystalline lens stability» Br.

Certifications and Relevant Activities > Eta Kappa Nu — Engineering Honor Society > Vietnam Veteran > Co-authored a paper «The effect of human in vivo accomodation on crystalline lens stability.»

The first half outlined the series of judicial review claims that have been brought over the last two years to challenge the lawfulness of the cuts to legal aid brought about by the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders (LASPO) Act 2012, while the second half examined the effect of human rights in individual cases across different areas of law.

The main evidence for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW), the principal alleged adverse effect of human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), is climate models built -LSB-...]

There is very high confidence that the net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming.

When you consider even the most extreme claim for the global warming effect of human CO2, it is within the error of the estimate of almost every single variable.

As the tundra and other regions of permafrost thaw, they will spew more gas into the atmosphere, adding to the warming effect of human emissions.

CONCLUSION Because of this GMT pattern, the cause of this pattern seems to be natural, and the effect of human emission of CO2 on the GMT appears to be negligible or non existent.

Therefore, the probable effect of human - injected carbon dioxide is a miniscule 0.12 % of the greenhouse warming, that is a temperature rise of 0.036 ºC.

Some pants also may be feeling the effect of human - selection.

The claim that «we can not predict next month's weather in London, so how in the world can we predict the effect of human - made greenhouse gases in 50 years!»

Scientists at the University of New Hampshire's Climate Change Research Center are preparing a paper (scheduled for publication in the journal Nature) that attempts to quantify the effect of human methane emissions on global climate change... and proposes necessary action to reduce this greenhouse forcing.

'' In the last 130 years, the magnitude of the maximum GMT swing from the global warming trend line before and after mid-20th century are identical, showing the effect of human emission of CO2 on the maximum GMT swings has been nil.»

The policy issues are, what is the marginal effect of human GHG emissions, and is it worth trying to do something about it by restricting those emissions?

The main evidence for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW), the principal alleged adverse effect of human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), is climate models built by CAGW supporters in a field where models with real predictive power do not exist and can not be built with any demonstrable accuracy beyond a week or two because climate and weather are coupled non-linear chaotic systems.

«The effect of human activity on our climate is no longer subtle.

We are witnessing, before our eyes, the effect of human - caused climate change.

Chad Wozniak says: October 7, 2012 at 9:08 pm «And no one can «do the match» so as to determine any such effect of human activity with any certainty or accuracy.

This is another «fingerprint» of change that reveals the effect of human influence on the climate.

And no one can «do the match» so as to determine any such effect of human activity with any certainty or accuracy.

Out here, we know an awful lot about building organisations to solve problems and (as far as possible) to reduce the effect of human frailties on the results.

This means the IPCC is tasked with finding a human effect of human carbon dioxide emissions on the climate, whereas NIPCC looks at climate change «in the round,» without bias.

The positive energy imbalance in 2005 — 2010 confirms that the effect of solar variability on climate is much less than the effect of human - made greenhouse gases.

For the state his is developing measures of the value of the services provided to us by the natural ecosystem in Maryland and monitoring whether they are increasing or decreasing in response to the effect of human habitation on them.

The range of model projections for each emissions scenario is the result of the differences in the ways the models represent key factors such as water vapor, ice and snow reflectivity, and clouds, which can either dampen or amplify the initial effect of human influences on temperature.

One important determinant of how much climate will change is the effect of so - called «feedbacks» in the climate system, which can either dampen or amplify the initial effect of human influences on temperature.

On a more positive note, federal environment minister Greg Hunt has promised that the Australian government will be «examining the cumulative effect of human activities and natural forces rather than looking at impacts in isolation».

Given the high uncertainty about the net effect of human carbon dioxide emissions on global temperatures, we only see natural changes in climate.

The main objectives, set for the WCRP at its inception and still valid today, are to determine the predictability of climate and to determine the effect of human activities on climate.

I have already made it clear elsewhere that the additional resistor effect of human CO2 would be insignificant in relation to that from the rest of the air and the oceans together with the varying solar and oceanic heating and cooling effects but we still need to know for sure whether it is significant at all over periods of less than several hundred years because that may be the time we need to solve our energy, pollution, resource and population problems.

I doubt that determining «the effect of human activities on climate» was listed as part of their mission in 1980.

Given that the effect of human emission (positive flux) and remediation (negative flux) is distributed over the entire planet and multiple years, small differences in spacial location or time within the year will make no more difference than differences in the larger natural sources and sinks.

You're right, & IMO, the net effect of human activity since c. AD 1950 has been to cool rather than warm the planet, although not much in either direction.

Looking at all of the records together shows that evaluating or estimating an effect of human CO2 has the Rohrschach like effect of depending on unstated or subjectively weighted assumptions.

-- Dot Earth Blog — October 3, 2008 — Expert: Some wonder if this could be the start of an extended period of solar indolence that would more than offset the warming effect of human - made carbon dioxide emissions.

For comparison, geothermal heat, the heat from Earth's hot interior leaking out through the crust, is about 45 TW or three times the direct heating effect of human activities.

For climate, there are probably simple approximations that could give useful answers to questions like «What is the probable effect of human CO2 emissions on future climate.»

Natural variability is still to be properly measured and defined and until we do this, the effect of human activity will forever be pure guesswork.

The net effect of human GHGs is vanishingly small, well within margin of error & no cause for concern.

... then we have reduced effect of human influence to just a tiny fraction of what is normally considered by Global warming people.

Dismissing any effect of human activities on the climate however... seems stupidly ignorant.

Admittedly sometimes its difficult to know whether that is happening and there is always the effect of human nature to be considered.

So, while Co2 can be shown to radiate heat in a lab, the effect of human combustion of fossil fuels contributing roughly 3 % of the.04 % of the atmospheric Co2 levels will have, as I think you and others here have stated, a measured effect indistinguishable from zero.

2) CO2 and trace greenhouse gases are increasing rapidly in concentration as a direct effect of human activity.

[Some wonder if this could be the start of an extended period of solar indolence that would more than offset the warming effect of human - made carbon dioxide emissions]

Some wonder if this could be the start of an extended period of solar indolence that would more than offset the warming effect of human - made carbon dioxide emissions.

So should there also be a calculation of the effect of human biological energy generation on the natural carbon cycle?

If we assume this is right, then the net effect of human made SO2 emissions would be 0.1 ºC.

Why don't you give as much attention to the over 19000 American Scientists who have signed a petition which very much doubts the effect of human activity on global warming.

Lehmann Maupin will present new works by Ashley Bickerton (b. 1959) that push the boundaries of landscape painting and examine the effect of human construction and destruction on the environment.