Sentences with phrase «human carbon dioxide emissions on»

This position does not appear to be supported by any observational evidence, much like the highly exaggerated claims concerning the effects of human carbon dioxide emissions on climate.

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.

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

Not exact matches

ScienceInsider reported this week that the U.S. Senate rejected a resolution last week that would have blocked the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating carbon dioxide emissions based on its finding that they endanger human health, among other stories.

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.

The team discovered that the human impact on biogenic methane and nitrous oxide emissions far outweighed the human impact on the terrestrial uptake of carbon dioxide, meaning that humans have caused the terrestrial biosphere to further contribute to warming.

And such techniques might be capable, at best, of sequestering one billion metric tons of carbon dioxide per year (based on the extent of iron - deficient waters around the globe), compared with annual human emissions of more than eight billion metric tons and rising.

In the time since the 2007 version of this report, the human effect on the climate has grown more than 40 percent stronger, thanks to continued emissions of greenhouse gases and more precision in measurements, with carbon dioxide leading the charge.

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.

«My perspective is that it is not settled science,» he told the Senate spending panel, arguing that the jury is still out on whether carbon dioxide emissions from human activities are driving global warming.

Hi Andrew, Paper you may have, but couldn't find on «The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature» CO2 lagging temp change, which really turns the entire AGW argument on its head: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658 Highlights: ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 11 — 12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature ► Changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

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

A failure to reduce carbon dioxide emissions significantly within the next decade will have large adverse effects on the climate that will be essentially irreversible on human time scales.

Indeed, the rehabilitation of our water bodies can not happen with a denial of science that portrays the toll of global warming on our oceans due to excessive carbon dioxide emissions and human folly in overexploitation, unregulated and destructive fishing, marine pollution and habitat destruction.

Please note the last sentence of 71 pages from Exhibit 5: presentation on «Understanding how carbon dioxide emissions from human activity contribute to global climate change»).

Libby's article speaks volumes about the difficulty of moving a world that is more than 80 percent dependent on fossil fuels toward one largely free of carbon dioxide emissions from such fuels within two or three generations, even as the human population heads toward 9 billion (more or less).

As for the ethics of all of this, Donald A. Brown of Pennsylvania State University argues that the world's top emitters of greenhouse gases are morally obligated to curb carbon dioxide and similar emissions based on the level of certainty that is already established on the impacts of those emissions — most of which will be in poorer places with small contributions to the human - caused gas buildup in the atmosphere.

I often try to step back and take the point of view of the atmosphere in considering claims of progress on curbing emissions of carbon dioxide from human activities.

There's some sobering news on two fronts that many climate campaigners, and politicians, have put at the forefront of their climate agendas: passing legislation capping carbon dioxide emissions and demonstrating technology for capturing and burying the main human - generated greenhouse gas.

Humans» use of fossil fuels, and the resulting carbon dioxide air emissions, has no material effect on climate.

Ironically these are the effective ways of mitigating the broad range of human pressures on the climate system — sequestering carbon dioxide in the landscape, reducing methane, nitrous oxide, tropospheric ozone, black carbon and CFC emissions.

Over the last three decades, five IPCC «assessment reports,» dozens of computer models, scores of conferences and thousands of papers focused heavily on human fossil fuel use and carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions, as being responsible for «dangerous» global warming, climate change, climate «disruption,» and almost every «extreme» weather or climate event.

Karlsson claims that «human emissions of carbon dioxide and other anthropogenic greenhouse gases is [sic] a substantial influence on the current warming trend.»

«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 most recent report of the International Panel on Climate Change says it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of this warming which is driven by the build up of carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion, cement production, and land use changes.

The concept is that every human being on this planet has the right to emit the same amount of carbon dioxide; therefore, citizens of developing nations would be given the same quota for emissions as citizens in industrialized nations.

«The human impact on global climate is small, and any warming that may occur as a result of human carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gas emissions is likely to have little effect on global temperatures, the cryosphere (ice - covered areas), hydrosphere (oceans, lakes, and rivers), or weather.

Like DiCaprio's short film Carbon, released in the weeks prior to the United Nations» Climate Summit 2014, Before the Flood is based on the highly debatable hypothesis that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from human activities are causing catastrophic climate change.

The established science shows carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, that humans produce greenhouse gas emissions, and that humans have had some effect on Earth's climate.

In a sharp change from its cautious approach in the past, the National Academy of Sciences on Wednesday called for taxes on carbon emissions, a cap - and - trade program for such emissions or some other strong action to curb runaway global warming.Such actions, which would increase the cost of using coal and petroleum — at least in the immediate future — are necessary because «climate change is occurring, the Earth is warming... concentrations of carbon dioxide are increasing, and there are very clear fingerprints that link [those effects] to humans,» said Pamela A. Matson of Stanford University, who chaired one of five panels organized by the academy at the request of Congress to look at the science of climate change and how the nation should respond.

And it endorses the deployment of various carbon dioxide removal methods as relatively benign ways to counter human emissions, arguing that the decision on mitigation versus carbon dioxide removal is largely a question of cost.

In the conclusion to his «Plan B» chapter (p 228), Bob Carter writes: «It is therefore time to move away from stale «he - says - she - says» arguments about whether human carbon dioxide emissions are causing dangerous warming, and on to designing effective policies of hazard management for all climate change, based on adaptation responses that are tailored for individual countries or regions... By their very nature, strategies that can cope with the dangers and vagaries of natural climate change will readily cope with human - caused change too should it ever become manifest.»

And when the energy - short 1970s turned into the energy surplus of the 1980s, RFF's angst shifted to issues surrounding a human influence on global climate, primarily from carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas.

Up until now, 29 per cent of human emissions of carbon dioxide has been taken up by the oceans, 28 per cent has been absorbed by plant growth on land, and the remaining 43 per cent has accumulated in the atmosphere.

Its revised projection indicates that if we stick with business as usual, in terms of carbon dioxide emissions, average surface temperatures on «Earth by 2100 will hit levels far beyond anything humans have ever experienced.

The new target: Naomi Oreskes who last week found her research used as a foil by some lawmakers in the U.S. House of Representatives to try and discredit the widely - accepted and growing view that there is a broad scientific consensus on the evidence of human - caused global warming caused by rising carbon dioxide emissions.

While you acknowledged that the climate is changing and that humans are having an impact on it, it is critically important that you understand that emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are the primary cause.

Velasco dismissed computer models that are used to predict global warming as a result of man - made carbon dioxide emissions, noting that «today we are experiencing a scientific revolution in which on one side there are are supercomputers and on the other, human intelligence.

As the warming of oceans is the dominating reason for the increased content of atmospheric carbon dioxide, and as nowadays the human yearly portion (about 8 GtC CO2) of the all yearly CO2 emissions (little over 200 GtC CO2) to the atmosphere is about 4 %, the human role on the recent yearly increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is also about 4 %.

A failure to reduce carbon dioxide emissions significantly within the next decade will have large adverse effects on the climate that will be essentially irreversible on human time scales.

It is therefore difficult to see how the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the IPCC) can maintain there is a 95 per cent probability that human emissions of carbon dioxide have caused most of the global warming that has occurred over the last several decades (4).

All of the above is background to one of the great mysteries of the climate change issue... how the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the IPCC) can maintain there is a 95 per cent probability that human emissions of carbon dioxide have caused most of the global warming that has occurred over the last several decades (4).

Instead, carbon removal aims to reduce historical human influence on the climate system by decreasing the amount of excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere — essentially reversing the influence of anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

They also lessen reliance on fossil fuels, thus decreasing carbon dioxide emissions and other forms of pollution harmful to humans and the planet alike.

E.g., research assumes greenhouse gas emissions cause warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause»... carbon sequestration in soil is important for mitigating global climate change» (4a) No position Does not address or mention the cause of global warming (4b) Uncertain Expresses position that human's role on recent global warming is uncertain / undefined «While the extent of human - induced global warming is inconclusive...» (5) Implicit rejection Implies humans have had a minimal impact on global warming without saying so explicitly E.g., proposing a natural mechanism is the main cause of global warming»... anywhere from a major portion to all of the warming of the 20th century could plausibly result from natural causes according to these results» (6) Explicit rejection without quantification Explicitly minimizes or rejects that humans are causing global warming»... the global temperature record provides little support for the catastrophic view of the greenhouse effect» (7) Explicit rejection with quantification Explicitly states that humans are causing less than half of global warming «The human contribution to the CO2 content in the atmosphere and the increase in temperature is negligible in comparison with other sources of carbon dioxide emission»»

Hi Andrew, Paper you may have, but couldn't find on «The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature» CO2 lagging temp change, which really turns the entire AGW argument on its head: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658 Highlights: ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 11 — 12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature ► Changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

On page 3 Postma states that anthropogenic global warming means a general warming of the atmosphere theorized to be human emission of carbon dioxide (CO2), which is then theorized to cause a strengthening of the effect of the Greenhouse Theory, which actually causes said warming.

Second of all, humans can't easily have nearly as significant effect on water vapor in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide by direct emissions of these gases.

Meanwhile, carbon dioxide levels continue to rise, and hardly anyone doubts anymore that projects to pull carbon dioxide emissions out of the air will be a necessary transitional measure if the population of humans on Earth hope to continue energy - spurred growth while converting to renewable energy sources.

Regarding your second question, the paper of Frank et al agrees with my paper in many points, except for the argument on the global warming caused by emissions of carbon dioxide through human activities.