Sentences with phrase «human addition»

This was claimed to be outside natural increases and only possible because of human addition of CO2.

Imagine trying to claim that in the last 50 years, most natural causes of climate change have been replaced by human addition of CO2 to the atmosphere.

It is claimed that, since 1950, human additions of CO2 has been the dominant cause of warming.

The screaming new human addition to the family.

«That gave us confidence to project how the beaches will behave in the future,» Barnard explains, because it allowed the model to account for variations in features like sand - grain size and beach slope among the different beaches, along with dynamics such as sediment supply from rivers, dredging and past human additions of sand.

Rockström tentatively sets the safe level for human additions to the nitrogen cycle at about 35 million tonnes a year, one - quarter of the current total.

Kayla and her husband will be expecting their first human addition to their family in August 2016.

She is the NW Coordinator and presenter for Doggone Safe teaching bite prevention to school age children and is the creator / instructor of Barks & Babes, a specialized class for expecting parents on how to prepare their dog for the family's upcoming human addition.

Having seen that sentence for the first time, and not necessarily in its Full context, I would take it to mean human additions since we have had an official co2 impact, ie.

Ancient respect for landscapes, including modest human additions, has been replaced with crass talk of «installed capacity» and «market share of renewables.»

This inadequacy alone likely more than equals the change created by human addition of CO2.

If you are expecting a new human addition to your lives, congratulations!!

Might the natural sinks of carbon at some times be able to absorb the human additions and result in no net increase?

There is no question, for course, that the human addition of carbon dioxide is a major climate forcing, both with respect to its warming influence but also its biogeochemical effect.

In addition, they now knew human CO2 was the cause and since it would continue to increase because of human additions the upward trend was certain to continue.

It is perfectly logical to interpret that as all human additions, not only those from now.

== > ``... but do you really think that human additions to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by the middle of the 21st century would be reasonably interpreted as from now?»

Perhaps you've misread Koonin's statement: For example, human additions to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by the middle of the 21st century are expected to directly shift the atmosphere's natural greenhouse effect by only 1 % to 2 %.

I think you have to be incredibly generous to interpret it that way as it explicitly says «human additions» not «human additions from now».

He said «human additions....

He explicitly said «Human additions».

I guess I have to consider any argument made by someone who calls me homie: — RRB -, but do you really think that human additions to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by the middle of the 21st century would be reasonably interpreted as from now?

Elimination of this assumption further undermines the claim that the warming in the industrial era period was due to human addition of CO2 to the atmosphere.

Alarmists attributed the cooling to human addition of sulphate, but that failed when temperatures began to rise, with no decline in sulphate levels.

The first two warmings could not be related to human additions of CO2 from industry hence why wouldn't the 1976 - 1998 warming also be due to natural processes?

Human additions of CO2 to the atmosphere must be taken into perspective.

They assume we can stop warming or climate change based on the claim that it is due to human addition of CO2 to the atmosphere.

Happer and his colleagues did not challenge that CO2 causes warming, but argued current warming was within the bounds of natural variability and that human additions of greenhouse gases were an extremely small share of what nature throws up every year.

the differences between pre-industrial and current atmospheric levels are due to human additions of CO2 to the atmosphere.

Although the natural fluxes of carbon dioxide into and out of the atmosphere are still more than ten times larger than the amount that humans put in every year by burning fossil fuels, the human addition matters disproportionately because it unbalances those natural flows.

How do the quantities relate to human additions of CO2?

Global warming due to overpopulation accepts the assumption that human addition of CO2 to the atmosphere is the cause and more people will produce more CO2.

Precision is important because a 0.6 °C increase in the temperature record over 130 years was presented as not natural and therefore clear evidence of global warming due to human addition of CO2 in the atmosphere.

16) That means that the entire human induced power of climate heat forcing, the human addition of eK attributed to human CO2, must be of all climate measured by the present wwT = 289k > 0 , the SUM of following equation factors:

True, 95 percent of the releases of CO2 to the atmosphere are natural, but natural processes such as plant growth and absorption into the oceans pull the gas back out of the atmosphere and almost precisely offset them, leaving the human additions as a net surplus.

A typical experiment is over a historical period where we have observations of how much CO2 humans have put into the atmosphere, how many aerosols, how many pollutants, and you run experiments that include all of those human additions to the atmosphere.

The human addition to this natural activity is piddling.

Inaccuracies in measurements and natural variations are likely sufficient to equal variations of CO2 effects, human additions or even CO2 in total.