Sentences with phrase «likely by human emissions»

Not exact matches

No thanks to us: the heatwave was made 35 per cent more likely by human greenhouse gas emissions.»

Of course, the extra heat trapped by human greenhouse gas emissions is likely to play a bigger role than raindrop friction in any atmospheric changes.

The first report concludes that global warming is happening, and is very likely caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases.

Still, a great portion of the «summary for policymakers» deals with the recent temperature rise, and it concludes that it's «likely» that there is a human contribution to the observed trend (by which I assume CO2 emissions are especially understood, even more so considered the negative forcings mentioned).

This means that an already difficult challenge for resident populations and those who care about them (for whatever reason, including moral, humanitarian or national security) will be likely be made more challenging by human climate change if the greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced significantly.

In the entirely subjective opinion of a particular group of IPCC authors, it's «extremely likely» (95 % certain) that «more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010» was caused by human - generated greenhouse gas emissions (see the bottom of p. 13 here).

But if they can be linked to warmer conditions globally, then these would be most likely caused by solar variations or cosmic rays, a recovery from the LIA and certainly not due to increases in CO2 levels, which aren't caused by human emissions anyway.

This is the belief backed up by the scientific evidence; in the most recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in September 2013, scientists agreed that it is «extremely likely» that human emissions of greenhouse gases are causing the planet to warm.

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.

Some human emissions and associated warming are likely to have occurred by the late - 1800s.

A 2011 survey of 41 Arctic researchers found that rapidly reducing human greenhouse emissions would limit the volume of carbon feedback from the Arctic to 10 % of the annual current human emission (or about 1 billion tons of carbon per year) by the end of the 21rst Century, but continue that emission for centuries to come (current Arctic carbon emissions are likely in the range of 30 million tons of methane and 100 million tons of CO2 each year).

Climate change is occurring, is very likely caused primarily by the emission of greenhouse gases from human activities, and poses significant risks for a range of human and natural systems.

«Climate Change Reconsidered, the 2009 report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), is a comprehensive 880 - page tome that rigorously analyses the IPCC's claim that dangerous global warming has «very likely» been caused by human greenhouse emissions.

Many climate skeptics argue that the most likely scenario for global warming is that human emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases will cause mild warming, a geographic mixture of winners and losers, and what problems arise can be met by adaptation.

To better assess how climate change caused by human greenhouse gas emissions will likely impact wheat, maize and soybean, an international team of scientists now ran an unprecedentedly comprehensive set of computer simulations of US crop yields.

A physicist is no more likely than a sociologist to know what human emissions will be 50 years from now — if a slight warming would be beneficial or harmful to humans or the natural world; if forcings and feedbacks will partly or completely offset the theoretical warming; if natural variability will exceed any discernible human effect; if secondary effects on weather will lead to more extreme or more mild weather events; if efforts to reduce emissions will be successful; who should reduce emissions, by what amounts, or when; and whether the costs of attempting to reduce emissions will exceed the benefits by an amount so large as to render the effort counterproductive.

«Climate science» as it is used by warmists implies adherence to a set of beliefs: (1) Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations will warm the Earth's surface and atmosphere; (2) Human production of CO2 is producing significant increases in CO2 concentration; (3) The rate of rise of temperature in the 20th and 21st centuries is unprecedented compared to the rates of change of temperature in the previous two millennia and this can only be due to rising greenhouse gas concentrations; (4) The climate of the 19th century was ideal and may be taken as a standard to compare against any current climate; (5) global climate models, while still not perfect, are good enough to indicate that continued use of fossil fuels at projected rates in the 21st century will cause the CO2 concentration to rise to a high level by 2100 (possibly 700 to 900 ppm); (6) The global average temperature under this condition will rise more than 3 °C from the late 19th century ideal; (7) The negative impact on humanity of such a rise will be enormous; (8) The only alternative to such a disaster is to immediately and sharply reduce CO2 emissions (reducing emissions in 2050 by 80 % compared to today's rate) and continue further reductions after 2050; (9) Even with such draconian CO2 reductions, the CO2 concentration is likely to reach at least 450 to 500 ppm by 2100 resulting in significant damage to humanity; (10) Such reductions in CO2 emissions are technically feasible and economically affordable while providing adequate energy to a growing world population that is increasingly industrializing.

Yet, unless the ethical and justice issues raised by climate change are seriously considered by nations when they formulate their international emissions reductions commitments under the UNFCCC, the international community is not likely to find a global solution to prevent potential enormous damages from human - induced warming (See, On The Practical Need To Examine Climate Change Policy Issues Through An Ethical Lens)

Globally, permafrost carbon emissions are likely to amplify warming caused by fossil fuel burning and other human activities.

And whatever squat Northeast warming has occurred is most likely explained by a combination of natural forces and land - use forcings, not human CO2 emissions.

The assembled panel issued the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report entitled «The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policy Makers» that concludes that global average temperature will rise between 1.1 °C to 6.4 °C by 2100, and that it is «very likely» (90 % certainty) that human activities and emissions are causing global warming.

The IPCC premise (let's call it CAGW for short) is that most of the observed warming since around 1950 was very likely [i.e. with greater than 90 % likelihood] caused by increased human GHG concentrations — AND that this constitutes a potential threat to humanity and our environment unless actions are undertaken to curtail human GHG emissions (principally CO2).

You have no data on ocean pH, or on how much the overall ocean pH COULD (or will) be lowered by human CO2 emissions or how marine life COULD (or will) likely respond.

The CAGW premise can be stated as follows: «most of the warming since 1950 is more than 90 % likely to have been caused by increased human GHGs and this represents a serious potential threat to humanity and our environment, unless actions are undertaken to curtail human GHG emissions, principally CO2»

Atmospheric CO2 is likely to increase to around 640 ppmv *, assuming — There will be no global Kyoto type climate initiatives — Human CO2 emissions increase with human population — Global per capita human fossil fuel use increases by 30 % by 2100 (it increased by 20 % from 1970 to today)-- Population growth is estimated to slow down sharply, with population reaching 10.5 billion by 2100 (* Note that this could be lower by around 60 ppmv if there is a concerted switch to nuclear power instead of coal for new power plHuman CO2 emissions increase with human population — Global per capita human fossil fuel use increases by 30 % by 2100 (it increased by 20 % from 1970 to today)-- Population growth is estimated to slow down sharply, with population reaching 10.5 billion by 2100 (* Note that this could be lower by around 60 ppmv if there is a concerted switch to nuclear power instead of coal for new power plhuman population — Global per capita human fossil fuel use increases by 30 % by 2100 (it increased by 20 % from 1970 to today)-- Population growth is estimated to slow down sharply, with population reaching 10.5 billion by 2100 (* Note that this could be lower by around 60 ppmv if there is a concerted switch to nuclear power instead of coal for new power plhuman fossil fuel use increases by 30 % by 2100 (it increased by 20 % from 1970 to today)-- Population growth is estimated to slow down sharply, with population reaching 10.5 billion by 2100 (* Note that this could be lower by around 60 ppmv if there is a concerted switch to nuclear power instead of coal for new power plants)

Human beings have increased the Earth's temperature by 0.8 degrees C. Peltier believes that even with aggressive emissions reduction policies in place, the temperature would likely still rise another 0.8 degrees.

Although ice cores demonstrate that climate, in the distant past, sometimes changed very abruptly, future temperatures resulting from our current emissions course will likely exceed anything ever experienced by humans.

By the way deniers, when one of the next five years turns out to be the hottest on record in all the datasets, which is very likely barring a major volcano — will you admit you were wrong and the planet is warming due to rising human - generated emissions of carbon dioxide as predicted by the scientific communitBy the way deniers, when one of the next five years turns out to be the hottest on record in all the datasets, which is very likely barring a major volcano — will you admit you were wrong and the planet is warming due to rising human - generated emissions of carbon dioxide as predicted by the scientific communitby the scientific community?