Sentences with phrase «how anthropogenic emissions»

Regarding predictions / projections / scenarios, not being able to better predict how anthropogenic emissions will evolve in time is not really a problem for understanding climate change.

They also limit our understanding of how anthropogenic emissions will affect future warming trends.

Not exact matches

The preliminary results of this study have been on our website since the time the flooding happened, but now we have looked not only at the rainfall, but also the influence of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions on the atmospheric circulation and how this propagates from rainfall, to river flow down to the direct impact of flooded houses in the river catchment zones.

The people who claim that the CO2 increase is not anthropogenic have never outlined a consistent explanation of how that could happen in the face a massive human emissions.

All of these, as well as CO2 sequestration as is (just taking CO2 and burying it in old oil reservoirs, aquifers, etc.), would be attempts to grasp the «big control knob» (see Hank Roberts» 670), and in such a way as to have the same or nearly the same (depending on seawater chemistry and how carbonate dissolution works in buffering pH relative to sequestering CO2 from the atmosphere) effect as reducing anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

In the present work, a multidisciplinary approach is used to examine how contributions of H2SO4 and MSA to particle formation will change in a large coastal urban area as anthropogenic fossil fuel emissions of SO2 decline.

It is hard to contrive a plausible set of inaccuracies that would reverse the conclusion that anthropogenic emissions account for most warming, although the quantitation of how much is «most» would be affected.

I think that even laymen can be made understand the natural law, according to which both all the CO2 sources and all the CO2 sinks together control the CO2 content in the atmosphere, and that the share of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions in the atmospheric CO2 content depends on how the quantity of anthropogenic CO2 emissions is in the proportion to the total CO2 emissions.

On the whole, Revkin seems to be saying that we don't really know what anthropogenic CO2 emissions will do to the Earth, or how mankind will respond, but the bet right now is that it will not turn out well.

Even those geoengineering solutions directed at mainly anthropogenic causes such as CO2 emissions — for example, extraction of CO2 from ambient air — would cool the climate regardless of how we divide up the factors contributing to its warming.

When will scientists begin to be honest about just how tiny anthropogenic CO2 emissions are in comparison to natural CO2 emissions from the biosphere?

In terms of how I got the numbers, I integrated the rate of anthropogenic CO2 emission to measure the total CO2 emitted versus time, then compared it to the % change in concentration level.

I am not sure I get how you arrived at this: «During this period, anthropogenic CO2 emissions amounted to about 20 % of the total CO2 emissions» I suspect you may be forgetting that the emissions are cumulative, so even a flat blue line would go with a rising orange one.

But if that's true, how can you explain that cumulative anthropogenic CO2 emissions have been * twice * the atmospheric increase?

But it demonstrates how changed equilibrium conditions could have had the observed recent effect on atmospheric CO2 concentration whether or not there was a change in temperature and whether or not the anthropogenic CO2 emission existed.

The overall net emission over this period = + 0.5 units yet we can see how anthropogenic and sea (e.g. warming) contribute equally to this figure while net natural emission (i.e. sea + land) is — 0.5 Do we really know enough about the carbon cycle, in particular the natural fluxes of CO2, to rule out that some thing like this is going on?

It is then nothing but simple math to estimate how much the anthropogenic emissions should have increased the anthropogenic concentration.

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.

This effort is a critical component of NOAA's research into the future of the earth as a system under the influence of anthropogenic forcing to better understand how emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels, land use decisions and climate and ecological interactions will determine future carbon dioxide levels and the corresponding climate change.

Given the massive change in the rate of anthropogenic emissions over this period, it is difficult to conceive of how this would be possible if anthropogenic emission really was a dominant control on atmospheric concentration.

One can even question just how much of the post industrial increase in CO2 is actually due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions — whilst still accepting Mosher's 1 - 4.

To what extent, then, has humankind warmed the world, and how much warmer will the world become if the current rate of increase in anthropogenic CO2 emissions continues?

Additional information for how volcanic CO2 emissions compare to anthropogenic CO2 emissions is available at Gases: Man vs. the Volcano.

In a new study published in the Journal of Climate, the Community Earth System Model Large Ensemble (CESM - LENS) of simulations is used to explore how various characteristics of the mid-latitude atmospheric circulation (zonal flow, synoptic blockings, jet stream meanders) evolve along the course of the 21st century under the RCP8.5 scenario of anthropogenic emissions.