Sentences with phrase «in airborne fraction»

• All C4MIP models project an increase in the airborne fraction of total anthropogenic CO2 emissions through the 21st century.

Given the uncertainty in the airborne fraction of CO2 and possible non-CO2 gases, we can not rule out the two - thirds Russell sensitivity, but the full Russell sensitivity fits plausible PETM carbon sources much better, especially if the PETM warming is actually somewhat more than 5 °C (see figure 10 for quantitative implications).

Dr Wolfgang Knorr at the University of Bristol found that in fact the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has only been 0.7 Â ± 1.4 % per decade, which is essentially zero.

The increase in the airborne fraction as temperatures increase is by no means an established fact; if anything the historical record says the airborne fraction is stable or declining very slightly.

Furthermore, they found «increasing evidence (P = 0.89) for a long - term (50 - year) increase in the airborne fraction (AF) of CO2 emissions, implying a decline in the efficiency of CO2 sinks on land and oceans in absorbing anthropogenic emissions.»

It is shown that with those uncertainties, the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4 % per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero.

Despite the predictions of coupled climate - carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.

He said that, contrary to what is often heard through media reports, «few scientists in the field really believe we are seeing an upward trend in the airborne fraction.

comment - page - 1 May 1, 2017 · Figure 1: Changes in the airborne fraction and the CO2 growth rate.

Since emissions in the last 40 years have been 3 times higher than in the period from 1924 to 1963 and 30 times higher than 1844 to 1883 it is not too hard to believe that the rapid growth in atmospheric partial pressure has forced such a change in airborne fraction

The only way this relationship could be linear would be if an increase in airborne fraction cancels out the logarithmic relationship between CO2 concentrations and radiative forcing.

Not exact matches

Knorr would agree with Running that the time span was probably the main significance of his study, but he sticks by his findings of a constant airborne fraction of CO2 and believes they are more accurate than the trend found in the LaQuéré study.

Steve, The ratio of human emissions to increment in air ppm is called the airborne fraction, and I think Wiki gives a fair summary of opinion about it — it had been thought to be remarkably stable, but some people think it is changing recently.

New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now.

As Knorr did find, there is no sign that the increase in the atmosphere (the «airborne fraction») changed in ratio to the emissions, thus the sink rate didn't change in ratio too.

I have not the slightest problem with the notion that the airborne fraction of human emissions remains constant, but one shouldn't misinterprete the result: What remains in the atmosphere is a rather fixed percentage of the emissions in mass not of the original molecules.

The difference is that in my calculations, the airborne fraction is about 55 % of the human emissions, while if you take into account land use changes, the airborne fraction is 45 % of the emissions.

Sherlock matty; ok, if Ferdinand only means the last 160 years nature has been a net sink and there has been natural variation before I'll go with that but he still has 2 dominant unknowns in natural emissions and sinks; you can't deduce them from the increase or human emissions; and I may have missed his attitude towards Knorr which shows the airborne fraction of ACO2 constant; I must confess I have had my ups and downs with interpreting Knorr but I still think it shows that natural CO2, not ACO2, is contributing the bulk of the increase in CO2.

The change of emission rate in 2000 from 1.5 % yr - 1 to 3.1 % yr - 1 (figure 1), other things being equal, would have caused a sharp increase of the airborne fraction (the simple reason being that a rapid source increase provides less time for carbon to be moved downward out of the ocean's upper layers).

No, 1500GtCO2 are 192ppm, and the difference in actual concentrations would be about half as much (because the airborne fraction is about 0.5).

«The proportionality of warming to cumulative emissions depends in part on a cancellation of the saturation of carbon sinks with increasing cumulative emissions (leading to a larger airborne fraction of cumulative emissions for higher emissions) and the logarithmic dependence of radiative forcing on atmospheric CO2 concentration [leading to a smaller increase in radiative forcing per unit increase in atmospheric CO2 at higher CO2 concentrations; Matthews et al. (2009)-RSB-.

As more CO2 is emitted and we move further along the line, these CO2 emissions are added to the fraction of previous emissions that remain in the atmosphere (the airborne fraction).

The decline is clearly visible in this accompanying chart, which shows the airborne fraction dropping after 2002 and breaking with the historical upward trend.

Since the start of the twenty - first century, the researchers state, «the airborne fraction has been declining (− 2.2 % per year), despite the rapid increase in anthropogenic emissions.»

«That portion that stays in the atmosphere — that's called the airborne fraction,» said Trevor Keenan, one of the report's authors, «has reduced by about 20 % over the last 15 years.»

This results in a lower airborne fraction.

Each effect is given in terms of its impact on the mean airborne fraction over the simulation period (typically 1860 to 2100), with bars showing the uncertainty range based on the ranges of effective sensitivity parameters given in Tables 7.4 and 7.5.

Quoting from a really bad RC post gives a disservice to the numbers, however they are only using the terrestrial sink, the ocean biosphere is around equal, with the remainder being the airborne fraction (Which has exhibited step like changes in the last 20 yrs)

Patrick 027: I think your figures are underestimated, we have already burnt around 400 GtC I think (did you take into account the airborne fraction in the estimate of past consumption?).

If we spread out our emissions over time, the airborne fraction would tend to drop because the C already added is still being redistributed (though more slowly)-- on the other hand, other effects could increase the airborne fraction, at least in the «short» - term).

To go from the amount of CO2 emitted to the actual increase in the atmosphere, one needs to know what fraction of the emissions remains in the air: the «airborne fraction».

Of course, lots of things can happen in the next 90 years to emissions, to the ocean and plant absorption rate (resulting in the 50 % airborne fraction), and to the supply of oil and coal, to the population and to technology.