Sentences with phrase «human sourced co2»

It is probable that even a 1 % variation in atmospheric water vapor equals or exceeds all the effects of human sourced CO2.

Do these models also predict the current nine years of cooling or when the 2ppmv annual increase in CO2 concentrarion will once again cause catastropic global warming as predicted by the models in the IPCC 2001TAR which predicted the non existant warming from human sourced CO2 emissions over the past ten years that never happened?

Neither plants nor water have a mechanism to limit CO2 absorbtion.Your picture of a human sourced CO2 molecule being captured allowing a lucky natural molecule to remain freeeee!!

So, the AGW meme is that when temps go up it is because of HUMAN - SOURCE CO2 and only because of human source CO2, but when it does not go up, it is because of some «other factor» — anything else, some unnamed «something else» — any «other factor» but human source CO2.

Not exact matches

«This study brings into sharp focus the effects on wheat — one of the largest sources of nutrients for humans,» says Irakli Loladze of the University of Nebraska in Lincoln, who predicted the negative effects of rising CO2 on micronutrients seven years ago.

Humans cut down a lot of trees, making deforestation the second biggest source of the 30 billion metric tons of CO2 put into the atmosphere yearly by us.

Carbon release rates from human sources reached a record high in 2014 of about 37 billion metric tons of CO2.

According to one of its lead authors, the report will say that to limit global warming to 2 °C, we must keep CO2 emissions from all human sources since the start of the Industrial Revolution to below about a trillion tonnes of carbon.

This rapid turnover means that even if human activity was directly adding or removing significant amounts of water vapour (it isn't), there would be no slow build - up of water vapour as is happening with CO2 (see Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are tiny compared with natural sourhuman activity was directly adding or removing significant amounts of water vapour (it isn't), there would be no slow build - up of water vapour as is happening with CO2 (see Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are tiny compared with natural sourHuman CO2 emissions are tiny compared with natural sources).

Carbon dioxide, or CO2, in the atmosphere comes from many sources, and human activities have added a significant amount.

The CO2 content of the oceans decrease, pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere, depriving plants of their food source, causing agriculture to fail, and the dreams of the humanity - is - a-cancer-on-the-face-of-the-planet types comes true: the extinction of human life, and much animal life with it.

In recent decades, human acitvities are the only sources of excess CO2.

Of the 186 billion tons of carbon from CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity.

It appears that we would hit the magic number of 560 ppm when our species releases slightly more into CO2 the atmosphere than does mother nature, I make it about 21.5 GT per year from human sources and 21GT natural to hit 550 ppm.

And then we have this nonsense: «the sources and amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere are of secondary importance... it is human burninig of coal, oil and natural gas that is at issue.

In any case, the lay reader is left with the impression that such a scenario would be absolutely catastrophic, and that once Arctic methane sources exceed human CO2 sources (using this rather arbitrary criteria) what we do won't matter anymore.

Just been looking up the sources for commercial CO2 and here is a short exerpt from google: «The most common operations from which commercially - produced carbon dioxide is recovered are industrial plants which produce hydrogen or ammonia from natural gas, coal, or other hydrocarbon feedstock, and large - volume fermentation operations in which plant products are made into ethanol for human consumption, automotive fuel or industrial use.

Incidentally, we also know that the extra CO2 results from human activity because lab tests can tell the difference between CO2 produce by burning fuel and CO2 that comes from other sources.

Funny how difficult it is for him and his fellow denialati to look at 1) where that carbon came from 2) its isotopic composition 3) the fact that it takes a while for permafrost to melt and oceans to become a source rather than a sink 4) the fact that humans are producing about 2x as much carbon as is going into the atmosphere 5) the remaining CO2 is acidifying the oceans

During glacial to interglacial transitions there was no addition of CO2 to the atmosphere from extraneous sources like human beings and thus there was a net release of CO2 from the oceans and terrestrial sources.

(6) CO2 released from anthropogene sources apparently has little influence on the observed changes in atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

Merely pointing out, for example, that CO2 can be heated by providing an energy source invisible to the human eye, is obviously meaningless in relation to the Warmist cause, unless you are extremely gullible, and fervently desire to believe the unbelievable.

If the human contribution is not the sole important source of the increase in concentration, we must have another independent process that releases CO2 from some reservoir.

Using data from government agency sources, it is possible to construct atmospheric CO2 levels (ppm) and human CO2 emissions going back to 1751.

Please explain how the environment can tell the difference between human production of CO2 at 385 ppm vs non-human sources of CO2 at 3000 or more PPM?

It is highly likely that human CO2 emissions were the leading cause of the overall CO2 rise as there are not other sources that we have identified as having increased their CO2 emissions in the amounts required to make the overall rise.

Again, I am not disagreeing that humans are a major source of CO2 emissions, but I do fault your conclusion that you know humans are definately the source for all the increases in atmospheric CO2.

If we include only human sources of CO2 and aerosols, then we can explain 60 to 70 % of past variations.

You answer: «Depends of what time of the day (and in what season) samples were taken: at night and mornings, the highest levels are found, as at night plants and soil bacteria respire CO2 and wind speeds are often low, thus all CO2 of all sources (including human sources) accumulate, typically with over 100 ppmv compared to background.»

The mass balance and d13C balance shows that vegetation as sink is not large enough to absorb all human CO2 if the oceans are a source and ice cores show that CO2 and temperature go to a (surprisingly linear) new equilibrium for every change in temperature level, not a sustained increase or decrease.

There are two main fast sources of CO2, besides human emissions: the oceans (which have a zero to positive d13C level 0 - 4 per mil) and vegetation decay (which has app.

I do, however, recognize the point of your suggestion that year to year fluctuations in the rate of CO2 change can involve flux changes between atmospheric and terrestrial or oceanic sources that add to or subtract from the human contribution.

This is because over the past three years, hundreds of new scientific field accounts of global warming's impacts, as well as improved peer - reviewed analyses of global warming itself in both the deep past and the very near future, have depicted earth's atmosphere as far more «sensitive» to the invisible CO2, methane and other human - sourced greenhouse gases than had been hoped.

Further, increased human - caused CO2 emissions mean more energy use, which results in more human productivity since humans generally use fossil fuel energy to increase their productivity and reduce their dependency on other less reliable and higher cost energy sources.

Believers of human - caused global warming insist that Earth's CO2 (carbon dioxide) has increased abnormally during the latter half of the twentieth century and that the source of abnormal CO2 increase has been the burning of fossil fuels.

Soils are the largest single terrestrial source of carbon dioxide (CO2), but these emissions are highly sensitive to a range of factors associated with climate change and human land use (1).

The sun is the primary source of heat on Earth (you don't say) and humans are not the primary source of CO2 on Earth, contributing only 7 billion tons of industrial carbon dioxide compared with natural sources that produce 200 billion tons annually.

Unless more CO2 from human sources could increase total atmospheric density it could not have a significant effect on global tropospheric temperature.

The half life I was using, 5 years, it may be 8 who cares, refers to the capacity of nature to Develop and Build a Sink for the annual Additional CO2 from human sources.

Secondly, and more importantly, nature could provide humans with a helping hand to reach those lofty CO2 concentration targets through the combination of natural terrestrial sinks becoming less effective, along with new sources of carbon emissions appearing as a result of rising global temperatures.

If the residence time was leading, then any addition (whatever the source) of CO2 would be removed in 5 years, or with the current continuous addition, the increase in the atmosphere wouldn't be more than (the notorious) 3 % as claimed for human inputs.

Is the argument that CO2 levels relate to temperature, and in fact if there were no human emissions then the «environment» would not be a sink and in fact would be a source... as the atmospheric concs are driven by temps and it is just a coincidence that the anthropogenic emissions are greater than the increase in atmospheric concentrations?

Because we know the emissions and the increase in the atmosphere, we know what nature is doing (that is natural sources — natural sinks) with the amounts available in the atmosphere, as nature absorbs or releases CO2 which makes up the difference between human emissions and the increase in the atmosphere.

Hence, human emissions are only augmenting a much larger source of CO2.

... In Fig. 5 we see that the yearly - average CO2 increase at Mauna Loa ends up being anywhere from 0 % of the human source, to 130 %.

FE in # 188 references his website «http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/eemian.html» clerly showing CO2 variability and periods where nature has been a source of CO2 (as it is rising with no humans around do make it»

It seems to me that intuitively, they could not accept the hypothesis that human emissions may not be responsible for an apparent increase in atmospheric CO2, no matter how good the correlation to natural sources might be.

Politicians and bureaucrats were led to believe that not just CO2, but human - caused CO2, was the source of future disasters.

After atmospheric CO2 levels remained steady for thousands of years, natural sources suddenly began to emit more than the sinks absorb at the exact same time as humans began burning fossil fuels.

Where natural sources of CO2 leave off and human sources begin What amount of CO2 in the atmosphere engenders ANY warming?