Sentences with phrase «not human emissions of greenhouse gases»

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.

Not exact matches

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.

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.

«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.»

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.

But President Bush's announcement Wednesday of a plan to halt growth in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2025, while not embracing all the enviro groups want, legitimizes their argument that global warming is caused by humans and an imminent threat to mankind.

By the way, I'd just like to mention that I am far happier to be arguing about the comparative benefits of nuclear power, wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, conservation, efficiency, reforestation, organic agriculture, etc. for quickly reducing CO2 emissions and concentrations, than to be engaged in yet another argument with someone who doesn't believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or that human activities are not causing warming, or that the Earth is cooling, or thinks that AGW is a «liberal» conspiracy to destroy capitalism, etc..

The article you linked to at Then There's Physics states «We probably have not been able to definitively demonstrate that the rising cost of weather disasters can be formally attributed to the human emission of greenhouse gases.

Terrell Johnson, reporting on a recent NASA publication concluding that deep ocean temperatures have not increased since 2005 (http://www.weather.com/science/environment/news/deep-ocean-hasnt-warmed-nasa-20141007): «While the report's authors say the findings do not question the overall science of climate change, it is the latest in a series of findings that show global warming to have slowed considerably during the 21st century, despite continued rapid growth in human - produced greenhouse gas emissions during the same time.»

But temperatures are running so far ahead of those during the last strong El Niño, in 1997 and 1998, that scientists said the records would not be occurring without an underlying trend caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases.

To argue, or even suggest, that [human action, including alterations in landscapes and emissions of greenhouse gases] «can»» or even doesn't, or even «may not» affect climate is in essence to argue against the very basic of geophysics and chemistry itself.

University of Florida researcher Edward Schuur says he doesn't expect permafrost greenhouse gas emission to trump anthropogenic (human - caused) greenhouse gas emissions anytime soon, however they could become «an important amplifier of climate change.»

Come the cold season, whenever there is some type of strong storm system near the U.S. Eastern Seaboard — be it a Nor» easter, a blizzard, or ex-hurricane Sandy — you don't have to look very hard to find someone who will tell you that this weather is «consistent with» expectations of climate change resulting from human greenhouse gas emissions.

If humans don't act to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases, Gore contends, the deaths caused by climate change will double in 25 years to 300,000 people a year, and more than a million species worldwide could be driven to extinction in half a century.

On the other hand, despite the overwhelming evidence that global warming will transform the Earth's climate for centuries, with fearful consequences for human health and wellbeing (not to mention the survival of many species and ecosystems), the world can not agree to significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions because of concerns about the effects on economic growth.

If the null is that human effects are real and significant, and if that hypothesis can not be falsified, the implication is that we should make a serious effort to blunt the magnitude and impact of our greenhouse gas emissions.

[3] Despite evidence and climate literature to the contrary, [4] the EPA concluded that manmade greenhouse gas emissions are a threat to human health and public welfare, not because of any direct adverse health impacts but because of their contributions to climate change.

Maybe you don't know much about the sum of radiative forcings, or findings from paleoclimate, that allow climatologists to calculate that human emissions of greenhouse gases are responsible for 100 + % of recent warming, but that doesn't mean nobody does.

Later studies suggested that along with overgrazing, human emissions, not only of greenhouse gases but also of industrial haze, had caused changes in weather patterns that contributed to the disaster.)

Climate models are not designed to capture record daily highs and lows with precision, and it remains impossible to know future human actions that will determine the level of future greenhouse gas emissions.

Monsieur Joggles, methane emission from the arctic can not be stopped, but they can be reduced by stopping, or failing that greatly limiting, human emissions of greenhouse gases.

In 1995 the coalition's own scientists reported that «the scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and can not be deniGreenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and can not be denigreenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and can not be denied.»

One of the problems with the EPA's Endangerment TSD is the nearly complete disregard of observed trends in a wide array of measures which by and large show that despite decades of increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions the U.S. population does not seem to have been adversely affected by any vulnerabilities, risks, and impacts that may have arisen (to the extent that any at all have actually occurred as the result of any human - induced climate changes).

Second, I agree completely that direct human emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases do not directly heat the earth by the amount that climate models project.

According to Dr Brekke, this time period coincides not only with an increase in human - caused greenhouse gas emissions, but also with a higher level of solar activity, which makes it complicated to separate the effects of these two phenomena.

The experts say their research DOES NOT UNDERMINE THE SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS THAT EMISSIONS OF GREENHOUSE GASES FROM HUMAN ACTIVITY DRIVE GLOBAL WARMING, BUT THEY CALL FOR A CLOSER EXAMINATION OF THE WAY CLIMATE COMPUTER MODELS CONSIDER WATER VAPOUR.

The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Gas Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 is well established and can not Greenhouse Gas Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 is well established and can not greenhouse gases such as CO2 is well established and can not be denied.

Another key point Boutrous made was that these human - sourced greenhouse gas emissions are due to growing wealth and development, of which fossil fuel combustion is a symptom, not a cause.

As the majority of scientists are now coming to believe, new research from Humlum et al. determines that indeed human CO2 emissions and other greenhouse gases are not the primary cause of global warming.

Humans will have to not only stop emitting greenhouse gases by 2085, but also develop technology that will result in negative emissions — the removal of 15 billion tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere each year by the end of the century — in order to prevent global warming from exceeding 2 °C (3.6 °F), according to a new study.

This is so because in addition to the theological reasons given by Pope Francis recently: (a) it is a problem mostly caused by some nations and people emitting high - levels of greenhouse gases (ghg) in one part of the world who are harming or threatening tens of millions of living people and countless numbers of future generations throughout the world who include some of the world's poorest people who have done little to cause the problem, (b) the harms to many of the world's most vulnerable victims of climate change are potentially catastrophic, (c) many people most at risk from climate change often can't protect themselves by petitioning their governments; their best hope is that those causing the problem will see that justice requires them to greatly lower their ghg emissions, (d) to protect the world's most vulnerable people nations must limit their ghg emissions to levels that constitute their fair share of safe global emissions, and, (e) climate change is preventing some people from enjoying the most basic human rights including rights to life and security among others.

Climate modelers are scrambling to try to save their creations» reputations because the one thing that they do not want to have to admit is that they exaggerate the amount that the earth's average temperature will increase as a result of human greenhouse gas emissions.

This is so because: (a) it is a problem mostly caused by some nations and people emitting high - levels of greenhouse gases (ghg) in one part of the world who are harming or threatening tens of millions of living people and countless numbers of future generations throughout the world who include some of the world's poorest people who have done little to cause the problem, (b) the harms to many of the world's most vulnerable victims of climate change are potentially catastrophic, (c) many people most at risk from climate change often can't protect themselves by petitioning their governments; their best hope is that those causing the problem will see that justice requires them to greatly lower their ghg emissions, (d) to protect the world's most vulnerable people nations must limit their ghg emissions to levels that constitute their fair share of safe global emissions, and, (e) climate change is preventing some people from enjoying the most basic human rights including rights to life and security among others.

So we have a situation in which the latest science on two key issues: how much the earth will warm as a result of human greenhouse gas emissions, and how well climate models perform in projecting the warming, is largely not incorporated into the new IPCC report.

Coleman went on to add that he based most of his views on the findings of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), an international body that says «because it is not a government agency, and because its members are not predisposed to believe climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, NIPCC is able to offer an independent «second opinion» of the evidence reviewed - or not reviewed - by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on the issue of global warming.»

Awareness of the scientific consensus on human - caused global warming is a key factor in peoples» decisions whether or not to support action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Because it has been scientifically well established that there is a great risk of catastrophic harm from human - induced change (even though it is acknowledged that there are remaining uncertainties about timing and magnitude of climate change impacts), no high - emitting nation, sub-national government, organization, business, or individual of greenhouse gases may use some remaining scientific uncertainty about climate change impacts as an excuse for not reducing its emissions to its fair share of safe global greenhouse gas emission on the basis of scientific uncertainty.

«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.

«This central truth must be stated without equivocation: control of the emission of human - induced greenhouse gases will not halt climate change.

The claim is often made that climate realists (a.k.a. skeptics) can not point to peer - reviewed papers to support their position that there is no evidence of «dangerous global warming:» caused by human emissions of so - called «greenhouse» gases, including carbon dioxide.

While the GCC distributed a «backgrounder» to politicians and media in the early 1990s claiming «The role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood,» a 1995 GCC internal memo drafted by Mobil Oil (which merged with Exxon in 1998) stated that: «The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and can not be denigreenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood,» a 1995 GCC internal memo drafted by Mobil Oil (which merged with Exxon in 1998) stated that: «The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and can not be deniGreenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and can not be denigreenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and can not be denied.»

Now, new research in Nature Climate Change [1] not only reinforces the reality of this trend — which is already provoking debate about the overall climate consequences of a warming Arctic — but statistically attributes it to human causes, which largely means greenhouse gas emissions (albeit with a mix of other elements as well)

Climate realists, those of us who do not support the hypothesis that greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are causing a climate crisis, have certainly been pleased.

The role of greenhouse gasses in climate change ARE NOT well understood, even if the POTENTIAL impact of human emissions has been documented.

[PRIVATE, 1995] «The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and can not be denied,» the experts wrote in an internal report compiled for the coalitioGreenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and can not be denied,» the experts wrote in an internal report compiled for the coalitiogreenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and can not be denied,» the experts wrote in an internal report compiled for the coalition in 1995.

[Review, 1995] «The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and can not be denied,» the experts wrote in an internal report compiled for the coalitioGreenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and can not be denied,» the experts wrote in an internal report compiled for the coalitiogreenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and can not be denied,» the experts wrote in an internal report compiled for the coalition in 1995.

So, the concern is not with the fact that we have a greenhouse effect, but whether human activities are leading to an enhancement of the greenhouse effect by the emission of greenhouse gases through fossil fuel combustion and deforestation.

RE: The Over-whelming scientific Consensus on man - made CO2 caused Global - warming - 97 % of the climate scientists surveyed believe «global aver temps have increased» during the past century [So do I]-- Your quotes: How «significant it is that 84 % of climate scientists have reached a «consensus» that «human - induced warming is occurring» «--RCB- 84 % «personally believe» [implies they may NOT have actually studied this topic — IE: may NOT be experts on this particular matter] human - induced warming is occurring -LCB--... — «In 1991 only 41 % of climate scientists were very confident that industrial emissions of greenhouse gases were responsible for climate disruption.

In reality, 2014, 2015 and 2016 have been the three warmest years on record not because of a large El Niño, but because of a long - term warming trend driven by human emissions of greenhouse gases.