The 0 - 2000 metre ocean is only absorbing 0.5 W / m2 / yr but
the net Human forcing is going to be reported by the IPCC tomorrow as 2.3 W / m2 / yr.
Not exact matches
[emphasis added] Bast: «We believe that climate has warmed in the second half of the 20th Century, we believe that there is probably a measurable
human impact on climate but it's probably very small, we think that natural
forces probably overwhelm any impact that
human activity can have, that computer models are too unreliable to forecast what the future might hold for climate and finally that a modest amount of warming is probably going to be, on
net, beneficial both to
human beings and the ecosystem.
Increase of Earth's energy imbalance from reduction of particulate air pollution, which is needed for the sake of
human health, can be minimized via an emphasis on reducing absorbing black soot [75], but the potential to constrain the
net increase of climate
forcing by focusing on black soot is limited [76].
Thus to provide the clearest picture of the CO2 effect, we approximate the
net future change of
human - made non-CO2
forcings as zero and we exclude future changes of natural climate
forcings, such as solar irradiance and volcanic aerosols.
Nature (with hopefully some constructive input from
humans) will decide the global warming question based upon climate sensitivity,
net radiative
forcing, and oceanic storage of heat, not on the type of multi-decadal time scale variability we are discussing here.
Currently, although only 20 % of the accumulated anthropogenic rise in carbon dioxide originates from land use and land cover change (LULCC), 40 % of the
net positive radiative
forcing from
human activities is attributable to LULCC sources (Ward et al 2014).
Well it's even more complex than that because the
net warming from
humans doesn't just involve CO2, but other greenhouse gases and it factors in the cooling effect of aerosols being dwarfed by the CO2
forcing.
Schematic diagram of
human - made climate
forcings by greenhouse gases, aerosols, and their
net effect.
Increase of Earth's energy imbalance from reduction of particulate air pollution, which is needed for the sake of
human health, can be minimized via an emphasis on reducing absorbing black soot [75], but the potential to constrain the
net increase of climate
forcing by focusing on black soot is limited [76].
The effects of aerosols and landuse changes reduce radiative
forcing so that the
net forcing of
human activities is in the range of 311 to 435 ppm CO2 - eq, with a central estimate of about 375 ppm CO2 - eq.»
Yes, it may in fact be less than that, but even considering all
net warming over ~ 160 years is due to
human forcing, the sensitivity consistent with our best estimates of current
forcing is a conservative estimate for public policy... the sensitivity may be lower, but it is unlikely to be much higher.
On
net,
human activity has a small positive effect on temperature after 1999 because of slight increases in anthropogenic
forcing and on - going adjustments to postindustrial increases in anthropogenic
forcings (Fig. 3).
The IPCC has noted that between 1750 and 2005, the radiative
forcing from the sun increased by 0.12 watt per square meter — less than a tenth of the
net forcings from
human activities (1.6 W / m2).
And before we know that, we will have to know whether or not our climate has changed primarily due to anthropogenic
forcing (as assumed by the IPCC models) or by natural factors (as some others have concluded), whether or not the
net impact of potential future
human forcing of our climate (i.e. the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity) will be positive or negative and inconsequential or substantial and whether or not the specific mitigation actions we propose will have any perceptible impact on our climate.
In rough or approximate terms, achievement of this alternative scenario requires that fossil fuel CO2 emissions in the next 50 years average about what they are today and the
net growth of other
human - made
forcing agents must be halted.