Sentences with phrase «land and ocean sinks»

«Combined, the Earth's land and ocean sinks absorb about half of all carbon dioxide emissions from human activities,» said Paul Fraser of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization.

Therefore; Humans added 3.7 ppm to the atmosphere, land and ocean sinks removed 2.1 ppm, atmospheric CO2 increased 1.6 ppm.

During such episodes, the net uptake of anthropogenic CO2 (sum of land and ocean sinks) is temporarily weakened.

Having retrieved the original article (Canadell et al., 2007, PNAS online) it's written (p. 3) that 65 + / -16 % of... d ² CO2 / dt ² (translation of «increase of atmospheric CO2 growth rate») is attributed to «the increase in the global economy», the remaining 35 + / -16 % being attributed to «the increase in carbon intensity in the global economy» and 18 + / -15 % to «the decrease in the efficiency of the lands and ocean sinks in removing anthropogenic CO2».

Not exact matches

For example, soil is second only to oceans as the planet's largest carbon sink, while agriculture and land use changes represent the second largest source of greenhouse gas emissions.

The coastline was barely recognizable; what had been one of the most beautiful and regular harbors in Asia now was an obstacle course, littered with masses of black pumice stone, tree trunks burnt and splintered as if by lightning, and the prows of previously sunken ships which the ocean had thrown onto land.

This paper outlines a new framework for assessing errors and their impact on the uncertainties associated with calculating carbon sinks on land and in oceans.

«Marine phytoplankton absorb carbon in the same way as trees on land, and when phytoplankton die and sink into the deep ocean, the carbon they contain is locked away for thousands of years.

Sunken lands... Easter Island — the living and solitary witness of a submerged prehistoric continent in the midst of the Pacific Ocean.

The Concrete Donkey is my favourite, however, with a solid donkey bomb falling atop an unfortunate worm or two, ploughing through the land beneath them and causing them to sink in to the ocean.

sources of carbon: land 120 Gt ocean 90 Gt human 7 Gt sinks for carbon: land 122 Gt ocean 92 Gt human 0 Gt net change: 3 Gt source And it's all human!

The discussion talks explicitly about how diminishing terrestrial and ocean carbon sinks over time require reduced CO2 emissions from fossil fuels / land use to achieve stabilization goals at various levels (e.g. 550 ppmv of CO2 in the atmosphere).

About half of the current carbon dioxide emissions are taken up by land and ocean carbon sinks.

They also ignored the processes involved, including, but not limited to, the differences in properties of grazed lands compared to woodlands, the effect of the ocean and other sequestration sinks, and the fact the while undergoing deterioration and desertification, poorly managed grasslands are an emission source instead of a sequestration sink due to land use changes.

Neither volcanoes nor a warming ocean would suck up atmospheric oxygen... As a side remark: the subtle difference between the rise in CO2 and the equivalent drop in O2 permits to estimate the partitioning of the ocean and land sinks of CO2.

Pacala and Socolow further theorize that advancing technology would allow for annual carbon emissions to be cut to 2 billion tons by 2104, a level that can be absorbed by natural carbon sinks in land and oceans.

Based on evidence from Earth's history, we suggest here that the relevant form of climate sensitivity in the Anthropocene (e.g. from which to base future greenhouse gas (GHG) stabilization targets) is the Earth system sensitivity including fast feedbacks from changes in water vapour, natural aerosols, clouds and sea ice, slower surface albedo feedbacks from changes in continental ice sheets and vegetation, and climate — GHG feedbacks from changes in natural (land and ocean) carbon sinks.

I have read that land use impact on CO2 sink ability and deep oceans circulation of CO2 rich water and calthrates, I believe they are called, also tend to release CO2 and reduce the Sink ability.

The researchers called for more work to be done to improve our understanding of the land and ocean CO2 sinks, so that global action to control climate change can be independently monitored.

The land and atmosphere have a very low energy storage potential compared to the ocean, but as increasing GH gases alter the thermal gradient, the large energy sink of the ocean naturally begins to gain more energy - which is of course exactly what we are seeing.

Some 60 per cent of our emissions have been taken up in natural sinks by, in roughly equal parts, dissolving into the ocean and by being taken up by plants growing faster on land.

MattyB; we DO N'T know the human emissions; we don't know how much is coming from land clearing; I've seen no studies which compare the CO2 uptake of new crops compared to established forest, or anything conclusive about cyanobacteria which are potentially one of the biggest and most living fluctuating sinks and which extent seems to be correlated with ACO2 emissions; and as Louis Hissinck noted, perhaps the biggest sink, ocean / mantle recycling is not considered in any discussion on CO2 / ACO2 flux.

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.»

AGW climate scientists seem to ignore that while the earth's surface may be warming, our atmosphere above 10,000 ft. above MSL is a refrigerator that can take water vapor scavenged from the vast oceans on earth (which are also a formidable heat sink), lift it to cold zones in the atmosphere by convective physical processes, chill it (removing vast amounts of heat from the atmosphere) or freeze it, (removing even more vast amounts of heat from the atmosphere) drop it on land and oceans as rain, sleet or snow, moisturizing and cooling the soil, cooling the oceans and building polar ice caps and even more importantly, increasing the albedo of the earth, with a critical negative feedback determining how much of the sun's energy is reflected back into space, changing the moment of inertia of the earth by removing water mass from equatorial latitudes and transporting this water vapor mass to the poles, reducing the earth's spin axis moment of inertia and speeding up its spin rate, etc..

The main problem IMO would be the impact of rising sea levels but the whole question is moot because the indications are that CO2 levels (both anthropogenic and natural) will never be problematic because of the huge sinks of the ocean and of the vegitated areas of the land mass.

For more than a decade, researchers have struggled and failed to balance global carbon budgets, which must balance carbon emissions to the atmosphere from fossil fuels (6.3 Pg per year; numbers here from Skee Houghton at Woods Hole Research Center) and land use change (2.2 Pg; deforestation, agriculture etc.) with carbon dioxide accumulation in the atmosphere (3.2 Pg) and the carbon sinks taking carbon out of the atmosphere, especially carbon dioxide dissolving in Ocean surface waters (2.4 Pg).

Different inter-hemispheric energy flows, Different geographical distribution of land, ocean and snow / ice covered surfaces, Different energy sources and sinks both in atmosphere and hydrosphere, different isolation depending on celestial parameters.

Another example are the Small Island Developing States (SIDS) who are simultaneously facing extreme events such as typhoons, extreme storms and sea level rise that threatens to literally sink their islands, ocean acidification and warming which threaten their marine life and fisheries, and salt water intrusion into their fresh water sources and agricultural land.

That implies that land use CO2 sink enhancement might have a much greater impact on reducing atmospheric and ocean CO2 more quickly than radical scared out your knickers, economically damaging mitigation at all cost ala Greg the idiot Craven.

They also said that communities along the Mid-Atlantic and East Coast would witness the highest increase of flooding yearly, not only because of the rise in sea level but also because of changing ocean dynamics and sinking land.

Net sink into land and ocean.

NASA's «GISS» temp uses land and ocean - based thermometers which measure «different parts of the system [UHI affected parking lots, asphalt heat sinks, AC exhaust air vents], different signal to noise ratio [we bias toward warm stations], different structural uncertainty [we «homogenise» our data set to cool the past and warm the present to fit the global warming narrative].»

Measuring O2 and calculating land and ocean carbon sinks

However, I think your last comment concluding that the rise in atmospheric CO2 not explained by increased ocean temperatures, must therefore be anthropogenic, is unjustified, as it doesn't consider the effect of increased temperature on the land based sources and sinks.

Heat would flow into all sinks atmosphere, oceans, land and everything else all the time.

Similarily, the reference below states «Natural land and ocean CO2 sinks removed 57 % of all CO2 emitted from human activities during the 1958 - 2009, each sink in roughly equal proportion.

The candidates are: 1) Latent heat of fusion (melting ice) 2) Dry continental land masses 3) The oceans Not knowing anything else but basic first physical principles and having general knowledge about the composition of the system, the most plausible largest heat sink in the system is (3).

On average in a year Man dumps out 2 units of CO2, of which 1 ends up in the atmosphere with the rest going into sinks (ocean and land, mostly ocean I guess).

There are much bigger fluxes to and from the atmosphere — plant growth and consumption by a range of organisms on land — but the essential sink remains in the ocean.

But the latter community sank into the ocean when a devastating earthquake in July 1990 caused the land to cave and sea levels to rise.

where Ea represents annual carbon emissions from anthropogenic sources (fossil fuel use and land use change), En represents the carbon emissions from all natural sources (the oceans, soil respiration, volcanos etc.) and Un represent the uptake of carbon by all natural carbon sinks (oceans, photosynthesis, etc.).

During La Nina events the opposite occurs; the land becomes a sink and the ocean a source of CO2.»

(Top) Fossil fuel and cement CO2 emissions by category (Bottom) Fossil fuel and cement CO2 emissions, CO2 emissions from net land use change (mainly deforestation), the atmospheric CO2 growth rate, the ocean CO2 sink and the residual land sink which represents the sink of anthropogenic CO2 in natural land ecosystems.

There is a fractional value, f, that elates the land to sea surface temperature and which corresponds to the ocean heat uptake, i.e. lower values means that more heat is being sunk by the ocean.

Don't worry yet mate because: «Land and ocean CO2 sinks respectively removed 30 % and 25 % of all anthropogenic CO2 emissions over the period 2000 — 2008, leaving about 45 % to accumulate in the atmosphere.»

They wanted to simulate what would happen to the carbon sinks on the land and the ocean for each model as the world gets warmer.

At the moment, about half of industrial emissions are absorbed by ocean and land carbon «sinks».

With increasing CO2 loss from land due to de-vegetation, drought and fire, and a decline in the capacity of warming oceans as CO2 sinks (1980s -1.9 PgC / yr; 1990s -1.7 PgC / yr [3]-RRB-, an increasingly larger proportion of CO2 remains in the atmosphere.

Similarly, the reaction products would have to find sinks somewhere (again, ocean and land).

Better yet, we just fill the special cube shaped bags someone suggested here with sea water and seal them and build liquid filled retaining walls around «sinking» countries and turn wind turbines into giant sprinklers that pump water out of the oceans and spray it on land!