Sentences with phrase «future human emissions»

Uncertainty in future human emissions becomes the largest source of uncertainty by the end of this century.

You have yet to respond specifically to my critique that you left out a key parameter when it comes to projecting future human emissions of CO2, namely the rate of growth of human population (who are emitting this CO2).

Both past and future human emissions of carbon dioxide will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium, due to the long time it takes for this gas to disappear from the atmosphere.

In short, future human emissions may alter one of the most reliable methods for learning about the past.

Not exact matches

That is because human activities going back 150 years have emitted long - lasting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, meaning that sharp reductions in future emissions are needed to avoid harmful climatic impacts.

«Carbon release back then looked a lot like human fossil - fuel emissions today, so we might learn a lot about the future from changes in climate, plants, and animal communities 55.5 million years ago.»

A few of the main points of the third assessment report issued in 2001 include: An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system; emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols due to human activities continue to alter the atmosphere in ways that are expected to affect the climate; confidence in the ability of models to project future climate has increased; and there is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.

Human activities that act on the crust are likely to multiply in the future, Wilson noted, as projects to tap into geothermal sources of energy and to store carbon dioxide emissions become more widespread.

Non-polar glacial ice holds a wealth of information about past changes in climate, the environment and especially atmospheric composition, such as variations in temperature, atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and emissions of natural aerosols or human - made pollutants... The glaciers therefore hold the memory of former climates and help to predict future environmental changes.

This suggests that the research community has a sound understanding of what the climate will be like as we move toward a Pliocene - like warmer future caused by human greenhouse gas emissions.»

Decisions made today are made in the context of confident projections of future warming with continued emissions, but clearly there is more to do to better characterize the human and economic consequences of delaying action on climate change and how to frame these issues in the context of other concerns.

If the human population continues to grow, more pressure will be put on carbon dioxide emissions — leaving future generations vulnerable to the effects of climate change.

As future climate changes become more severe, people might become interested in ways of offsetting the effects of human - induced climate, which could be cheaper than measures to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

«In the face of natural variability and complexity, the consequences of change in any single factor, for example greenhouse gas emissions, can not readily be isolated, and prediction becomes difficult... Scientific uncertainties continue to limit our ability to make objective, quantitative determinations regarding the human role in recent climate change, or the degree and consequence of future change.»

The focus of the debate on CO2 is not wholly predicated on its attribution to past forcing (since concern about CO2 emissions was raised long before human - caused climate change had been clearly detected, let alone attributed), but on its potential for causing large future growth in forcings.

But CO2 emissions from human activity in the past, and those expected in the future, mean the next ice is likely to be delayed to 100,000 years» time, the researchers say.

It's unlikely that the fossil fuel companies will deny in court what is widely accepted by authoritative scientific bodies around the world: that human emissions have already begun to warm the planet, that the harm is already being felt, that the risks of future harm are significant, and that to head them off emissions have to be rapidly reduced.

Because it contains greenhouse gases from a time before human emissions complicated the picture, the ancient air offers scientists clues to future climate patterns.

«Climate models can easily make assumptions about reductions in future greenhouse gas emissions and project the implications, but they do this with no rational basis for human responses,» Gross said.

Researchers shed light on the relationship between humans» carbon dioxide emissions and future climate change.

I'd like to see more, and I'd like to see some attention paid to deforestation, which will have to be brought under control if we are to reduce CO2 emissions and is in any case nothing less than a crime against the human future.

«In addition to greenhouse gas emissions, other first - order human climate forcings are important to understanding the future behavior of Earth's climate.

Obviously, we, the denizens of the world, will determine the future course of human emissions to the atmosphere as well as other perturbations to the earth.

There is one and only one justification for a carbon tax — an attempt to influence the future course of the earth's climate (or, as some people prefer, to mitigate anthropogenic climate change) by trying to force down the emissions of the most abundant human - generated greenhouse gas.

The argument is whether us humans have super-imposed our excessive carbon dioxide emissions upon the existing natural balance of the climate system — thereby altering it's natural chemistry leading to possible dangerous global warming at some point in the near and distant future.

If future global emissions are not curbed, human - driven global warming could cause further large declines in long - term temperature variability, the lead author tells Carbon Brief, which may have far - reaching effects on the world's seasons and weather.

The facts, simply stated: There is no science, no computer model, nor any available mechanism (s) that would allow today's humans to tweak CO2 emissions a certain way in order to produce a future climate of specific attributes by, say, 2050.

The rate and magnitude of future human - induced climate change and its associated impacts are determined by human choices defining alternative socio - economic futures and mitigation actions that influence emission pathways.

The IPCC model projections of future warming based on the varios SRES and human emissions only (both GHG warming and aerosol cooling, but no natural influences) are shown in Figure 6.

«Depending on emissions rates, carbon dioxide concentrations could double or nearly triple from today's level by the end of the century, greatly amplifying future human impacts on climate.

The IS92 emissions scenarios used in the SAR were replaced by the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES), which considered various possible future human development storylines.

To project future emissions from human activities, we used the SRES higher (A1FI) and lower (B1) emissions scenarios that capture to some extent the uncertainty in future climate due to human decisions [22], with CO2 emissions ranging from slightly less than present - day levels up to four times present - day levels by 2100.

It ignores two real physical constraints on human CO2 emissions (plus resulting warming) in the future: — changes in human population growth rates — total carbon contained in remaining fossil fuel reserves

And, believe me, Vaughan, that's the only curve that most people will be looking at in your analysis — your «prediction» of the future temperature allegedly caused by human CO2 emissions.

Tying future human CO2 growth projections to human population growth projections and adding in a 30 % estimated increase in per capita CO2 emissions by 2100, gives you a CO2 level of 640 ppmv (or a bit higher than IPCC case B2).

While the above analysis yields good results for by tying past climate change to increases in human CO2 emissions, it should be cautioned that the suggested exponential time relation is not suitable for projecting the future over longer time periods, because of possible changes in human population growth rates and absolute limitations on carbon available in remaining fossil fuels.

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.»

I'm sure you will agree that future human CO2 emissions will in some way be linked to future human population growth rates, i.e. if population grows rapidly humans will emit more CO2 in the future than if population grows slowly..

Simply tied future human CO2 emissions to expected future human population growth and added in a per capita increase in fossil fuel consumption similar to the one seen in the past.

But there are two basic practical problems with the exponential formula for projecting future CO2 concentrations based on added human CO2 emissions:

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.

Limiting carbon emissions is expensive - that's why there is a legitimate argument about how much human contribution to emissions matters and whether incurring those costs now is the best way to respond to the risks of global warming in the future.

Future emissions will be the result of human actions.

Nothing you have said has anything to do with the truth of the statement you are attacking: «Future emissions will be the result of human actions.

It is for this reason that the scenario framework distinguishes between «pathways,» which describe one component (such as RCPs or SSPs) of integrated scenarios, and «scenarios» themselves, which combine pathways with other information such as emissions, climate projections and policy assumptions to produce integrated descriptions of future climate and human system development.

Climate models are not designed to capture record daily highs and lows with precision, and it remains impossible to know future human actions that will determine the level of future greenhouse gas emissions.

This has always been the only serious risk and what must be avoided if the US and the developed world is to have a prosperous future that will allow humans to have access to the fossil fuel - generated energy needed for continued economic progress and improved human welfare and if plants are to not to lose partial access to one of their basic nutrients (assumming CO2 emissions reductions have any real effects on atmospheric CO2 levels).

«Meat production represents 18 percent of global human - induced GHG emissions... While the world is looking for sharp reductions in greenhouse gases responsible for climate change, growing global meat production is going to severely compromise future efforts... a study from the University of Chicago showed that if Americans were to reduce meat consumption by 20 percent it would be as if they switched from a standard sedan to the ultra-efficient Prius.»

These global climate models typically receive inputs from neoclassical economic and human demographic models for calculations of future greenhouse gas emissions.

In fact, there is no better way to obtain a good picture of how human health and welfare may trend in the future under increases in greenhouse gas emissions than to assess how we have fared in the past during a period of increasing greenhouse gas emissions and ambient levels.