Sentences with phrase «net human effect»

Total net human effect appears unchanged, which suggests the claimed increase of human CO2 between 2001 and 2007 was not included.

Not exact matches

The net effect of human - generated aerosols is more complicated and regionally variable — for example, in contrast to the local warming effect of the Asian Brown Cloud, global shipping produces large amounts of cooling reflective sulphate aerosols: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/08/990820022710.htm

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.

The net effect of this human study was a dramatic reduction in biological markers associated with cardiovascular disease.

A week after we had finished filming, Harris applied to take over MIT's prestigious Media Lab with the aim of studying the «Singularities Effect» — the weaving together of billions of human brains in a vast data net to form a new, higher form of intelligence.

I won't try for a complete definition of this world view (read Ayn Rand for that), but in this context it results in desperate objections to the concept of an environment that might bite back when over-stressed by the net effects of human personal choices (or at least the current ones being made by these folks).

Note that any net change in biomass (whether trees, or cows or even humans) does affect atmospheric CO2, but the direct impact of human population growth is tiny even though our indirect effects have been huge.

If we assume this is right, then the net effect of human made SO2 emissions would be 0.1 ºC.

The net effect of human GHGs is vanishingly small, well within margin of error & no cause for concern.

When combined with the other human effects, the net human influence is responsible for approximately 102 % of the observed warming from 1851 to 2010, and approximately 113 % over the 50 - year periods from 1951 to 2000 and 1961 to 2010 (averaged together).

This does not by itself tell us whether «humans dunnit» because that would require comparing the net effect of the two main components (Humans and Nahumans dunnit» because that would require comparing the net effect of the two main components (Humans and NaHumans and Nature).

You're right, & IMO, the net effect of human activity since c. AD 1950 has been to cool rather than warm the planet, although not much in either direction.

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.

Furthermore, the authors hail this as a harbinger of good things to come, explaining «the net effect of continued warming and rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere is most likely to be beneficial to humans, plants and wildlife.»

The authors of the new report say «the net effect of continued warming and rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere is most likely to be beneficial to humans, plants, and wildlife.»

And they add «the net effect of continued warming and rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere is most likely to be beneficial to humans, plants and wildlife».

SCC is effectively an estimate of the direct effects of carbon emissions on the economy, and takes into consideration such factors as net agricultural productivity loss, human health effects, property damages from sea level rise, and changes in ecosystem services.

Schematic diagram of human - made climate forcings by greenhouse gases, aerosols, and their net effect.

Given the high uncertainty about the net effect of human carbon dioxide emissions on global temperatures, we only see natural changes in climate.

The authors of the new report go on to say «the net effect of continued warming and rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere is most likely to be beneficial to humans, plants, and wildlife.»

On the vital question of how to approach climate change, the most influential economist is William Nordhaus whose explicit position is that we should decide to reduce greenhouse gas emissions only if cost - benefit analysis or an optimisation model concludes that the net benefits to humans are positive, where the relevant effects are essentially impacts on economic output (Nordhaus and Yang, 1996).

Up next will be the last step, what is the * net * effect on humans (and other life) within those decades, and what is our confidence in that?

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.»

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 net effect is a modest human increase in thermally stored and night radiated eK absorbed by A at surface levels.

Since solar effects, both direct and indirect, are more than sufficient to account for net estimated temperature change over the period of significant fossil fuel usage, have humans been warming or cooling the planet?

And I think you hit the nail on the head with: «5) Once we scientifically - oriented Skeptics accept the reality of the Atmospheric «greenhouse effect» we are, IMHO, better positioned to question the much larger issues which are: a) HOW MUCH does CO2 contribute to that effect, b) HOW MUCH does human burning of fossil fuels and land use changes that reduce albedo affect warming, and, perhaps most important, c) Does the resultant enhanced CO2 level and higher mean temperature actually have a net benefit for humankind?»

Given that the cosmic ray effect described by Svensmark would be more than sufficient to account for the net estimated temperature change since the Industrial Revolution, the key question becomes: Has human activity actually warmed, cooled or had no net impact on the planet?

So these two articles are suggesting that a grand solar minimum could have a net cooling effect in the ballpark of 1 to 6 °C, depending on how human greenhouse gas emissions change over the next century.

Human activity has also had a net negative effect on total global photosynthetic productivity since the most productive areas of land are directly in the path of urban sprawl [24].

Quantifying the net human influence on the climate is a more difficult task, because the magnitude of the cooling effect from aerosols remains highly uncertain.

There is very high confidence that the net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming.

1) CO2 is not rising significantly compared to earlier in the 20th century (Beck, Segalstad, Jaworowski) 2) OK, so CO2 is rising, but human sources are but a minor player (Howard Hayden, Spencer on WUWT) 3) OK, so human CO2 is significant, but its temperature effect is nonexistant (Heinz Hug) 4) OK, so CO2 has a temperature effect, but it is dwarfed by water vapour (Lindzen, Reid Bryson, Tim Ball 5) OK, so the CO2 temperature effect is not completely dwarfed by water vapour, but the sun is much more important (Svensmark, Shaviv, many others) 6) OK, so the solar output has been flat since the 50ies, but there are no net positive feedback (Lindzen again, Spencer again) 7) Actually, there has been no significant global warming (Watts, Singer + more), 8) Hey, all this warming is a) unstoppable anyway (Singer again) b) good for humanity (Michaels).