Sentences with phrase «not human emissions»

Atmospheric CO2 levels depend primarily on global temperatures (not human emissions of CO2 as the climate alarmist environmentalists claim).

The leading counter argument for (3) is that the CO2 increases are caused by the temperature increases, not human emissions.

One may then ask «what caused the increase in temperature from 1910 - 1940 if it was not human emissions?

And then there's the biggest misunderstanding of all: The question of whether or not human emissions are responsible for enough climate change to worry about has never been decided by thousands of people.

The rise in temperatures along the U.S. West Coast during the past century is almost entirely the result of natural forces — not human emissions of greenhouse gases, according to a major new study released today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

unexpected that 1/3 of the warming in the 1990s came from a negative feedback of water vapor and not human emissions, but that doesn't change anything... instead they CHANGE THE MODELS.

«Are people here serious about thinking that the CO2 rise in the past 50 years is due to oceans and not human emissions???»

You write: «Are people here serious about thinking that the CO2 rise in the past 50 years is due to oceans and not human emissions??? ``

Whether or not human emissions are about to cause a massive switch in climate is more or less irrelevant in the big picture.

The observed increase in CO2 concentration is due to global warming, not human emission of CO2 as shown = > http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/compress:12/normalise/plot/esrl-co2/compress:12/derivative/normalise/from:1979.3/plot/rss/normalise/trend

Not exact matches

But not everyone believes in human - induced climate change, or supports emission cuts.

Rick Perry, the U.S. Secretary of Energy who infamously once said he would do away with the Department of Energy, told CNBC that he didn't believe that carbon dioxide emissions from humans are the main cause for climate change.

«I don't believe that humans are causing climate change, but I believe that reducing carbon emissions might reverse climate change.»

The reason is that if climate change would not be human - caused, then humans would not be able to prevent it by scaling down their greenhouse gas emissions.

«This research does not change the consensus view that human emissions drive climate change,» says Fortunat Joos, a climate modeller at the University of Bern, Switzerland.

Ground - level ozone is a secondary pollutant, meaning that it is not emitted directly, but forms when sunlight triggers reactions between natural and human - caused chemical emissions, known as ozone precursor gases.

The ability of the oceans to take up carbon dioxide can not keep up with the rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which means carbon dioxide and global temperatures will continue to increase unless humans cut their carbon dioxide emissions.

That has squeezed out the Quino checkerspot butterfly's habitat, and with the climate changes coming as a result of human greenhouse gas emissions, its listing as an endangered species by the U.S. government may not be enough to save the pretty little butterfly from extinction.

The discovery won't mean much for climate change: The process occurs over millions of years, and the amounts involved are small compared with human - driven emissions.

If wetland soils dry out from evaporation or human drainage, emissions will fall — but not without other problems.

Global warming became big news for the first time during the hot summer of 1988 when now - retired NASA climate scientist James Hansen testified before Congress that the trend was not part of natural climate variation, but rather the result of emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses from human activities.

That is why deciding whether or not extreme weather events can be blamed on human emissions is so important.

It is now agreed that we can't explain the detailed temperature record of the 20th century without bringing to bear human effects and GHG emissions.

The progressively earlier occurrence of these high CO2 levels — not seen in somewhere between 800,000 and 15 million years — points to the inexorable buildup of heat - trapping gas in the atmosphere as human emissions continue unabated.

«If we were to stop all human - made emissions immediately, SLCF concentrations in the atmosphere would decrease quite rapidly to zero, but not so for CO2 concentrations.»

Fake paper fools global warming naysayers The man - made - global - warming - is - a-hoax crowd latched onto a study this week in the Journal of Geoclimatic Studies by researchers at the University of Arizona's Department of Climatology, who reported that soil bacteria around the Atlantic and Pacific oceans belch more than 300 times the carbon dioxide released by all fossil fuel emission, strongly implying that humans are not to blame for climate change.

Extreme weather events like Harvey are expected to become more likely as Earth's climate changes due to greenhouse gas emissions, and scientists don't understand how extreme weather will impact invasive pests, pollinators and other species that affect human well - being.

He sums up the IPCC's findings this way: humans cause climate change; climate change has severe impacts; and it is not too costly to reduce emissions.

This rapid turnover means that even if human activity was directly adding or removing significant amounts of water vapour (it isn't), there would be no slow build - up of water vapour as is happening with CO2 (see Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are tiny compared with natural sourhuman activity was directly adding or removing significant amounts of water vapour (it isn't), there would be no slow build - up of water vapour as is happening with CO2 (see Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are tiny compared with natural sourHuman CO2 emissions are tiny compared with natural sources).

«My perspective is that it is not settled science,» he told the Senate spending panel, arguing that the jury is still out on whether carbon dioxide emissions from human activities are driving global warming.

It marks the world's acceptance that climate change, driven by humans» greenhouse gas emissions, is about as close to a certainty as science can ever get — and that conclusion can not be covered up or waved away.

Regardless, CO2 human emissions levels are not going to fall (for decades at least), and even if they did, there would not be any dramatic change to the climate.

Because we are not predisposed to believe climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, we are able to look at evidence the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ignores.

Climate sensitivity does not care about emission schemes or human concerns.

It is not a good term to use to describe those who are rationally skeptical of the (not yet scientifically validated) premise that AGW, caused principally by the human emissions of CO2, has been the primary cause of past warming and that it represents a serious potential threat for humanity and the environment.

even if some humans take the necessary steps to reduce co2 emissions, others won't....

«In the face of natural variability and complexity, the consequences of change in any single factor, for example greenhouse gas emissions, can not readily be isolated, and prediction becomes difficult... Scientific uncertainties continue to limit our ability to make objective, quantitative determinations regarding the human role in recent climate change, or the degree and consequence of future change.»

The focus of the debate on CO2 is not wholly predicated on its attribution to past forcing (since concern about CO2 emissions was raised long before human - caused climate change had been clearly detected, let alone attributed), but on its potential for causing large future growth in forcings.

Or at least it won't for many centuries, as the long - lived nature of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere means that its effects will be felt for many human generations, absent efforts to curb emissions or use

Hi Andrew, Paper you may have, but couldn't find on «The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature» CO2 lagging temp change, which really turns the entire AGW argument on its head: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658 Highlights: ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 11 — 12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature ► Changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

Unfortunately, the bully isn't going away anytime soon since human emissions to date have locked in climate change - fueled warming for decades if not centuries to come.

All five research groups came to the conclusion that last year's heat waves could not have been as severe without the long - term climatic warming caused by human emissions.

One will represent conditions and «possible weather» in the winter 2014, and the second will represent the weather in a «world that might have been» if human behaviour had not changed the composition of the atmosphere through greenhouse gas emissions.

Even then, CO2 concentration rises because the stronger sink is still not enough to offset human emissions.

The people who claim that the CO2 increase is not anthropogenic have never outlined a consistent explanation of how that could happen in the face a massive human emissions.

Indeed, the rehabilitation of our water bodies can not happen with a denial of science that portrays the toll of global warming on our oceans due to excessive carbon dioxide emissions and human folly in overexploitation, unregulated and destructive fishing, marine pollution and habitat destruction.

Renewables are the new frontier of energy that does not pollute and that governments around the world are exploiting to curb carbon dioxide emissions harmful to humans and the environment.

[1] CO2 absorbs IR, is the main GHG, human emissions are increasing its concentration in the atmosphere, raising temperatures globally; the second GHG, water vapor, exists in equilibrium with water / ice, would precipitate out if not for the CO2, so acts as a feedback; since the oceans cover so much of the planet, water is a large positive feedback; melting snow and ice as the atmosphere warms decreases albedo, another positive feedback, biased toward the poles, which gives larger polar warming than the global average; decreasing the temperature gradient from the equator to the poles is reducing the driving forces for the jetstream; the jetstream's meanders are increasing in amplitude and slowing, just like the lower Missippi River where its driving gradient decreases; the larger slower meanders increase the amplitude and duration of blocking highs, increasing drought and extreme temperatures — and 30,000 + Europeans and 5,000 plus Russians die, and the US corn crop, Russian wheat crop, and Aussie wildland fire protection fails — or extreme rainfall floods the US, France, Pakistan, Thailand (driving up prices for disk drives — hows that for unexpected adverse impacts from AGW?)

And it doesn't change the fundamental fact that human emissions of CO ₂ are almost certainly responsible for more than 100 % of the observed warming, once the effect of aerosols is accounted for.

It's not a simple or obvious thing to suggest that x number of tornadoes extra were caused by human industrial emissions.