Sentences with phrase «of human contributions»

It's not the sexiest form of clean energy out there — in fact, it smells pretty bad — but its readily available, abundant, and gives us an opportunity to deal with one source of human contributions to global climate change.

«To the extent that reporting and commentary have misrepresented scientific consensus on the issue of human contributions to climate change, there is a problem.»

Or is the argument that the carbon cycle is so big that any part of human contributions which may end up in the atmosphere are negligible?

For Salby to claim that the atmospheric increase in CO2 is independent of human contributions, he must explain how the 3ppm added by humans disappears, and then 1.5 to 2ppm reappears from some other source.

Claims of effects of human contributions are not measureable, which means the claims are garbage.

(a) The Plaintiff has never published any research in any peer - reviewed scientific journal which addressed the topic of human contributions to greenhouse gas emissions and global warming;

Their rejection of a climate apocalypse — and not a denial of human contributions to climate change — is actually the view of most climate «skeptics,» and nothing Christie said is incompatible with that view.

Gallup's trend data show that Republicans have become less likely to accept the idea of human contributions to global warming over the past half - decade — the percentage believing that global warming is due more to «the effects of pollution from human activities» has declined by 10 percentage points, from 52 % in 2003 to 42 % in 2008.

What's important, to my mind, is not to confuse this kind of normal, healthy scientific debate with more basic understanding of human contributions to, and responses to, climate change.

Kyoto regulates all sources of carbon dioxide as well as other greenhouse gases, but reliable long - term data by country are available only for carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels (which accounts for about two - thirds of the human contribution to global warming).

«The exact percentage of human contribution remains uncertain, but the overall relationship — an increase in fuel aridity, fire days, and fire extent — is clear and significant,» Anchukaitis said.

Given the rapid rise in recent decades, the answer seems to be «pretty large,» but emissions from the burning of fossil fuels may only be part of the human contribution.

The findings are among the first formal identifications of human contribution to extreme hydrological events.

Unconvinced of the human contribution to warming, the alternative that Zycher suggests is that the warming we have observed may be a symptom of our emergence from a little ice age (starting in about 1800).

In fact, according to a Skeptical Science review of studies on human and natural contributions to global warming: «Most studies showed that recent natural contributions have been in the cooling direction, thereby masking part of the human contribution and in some cases causing it to exceed 100 % of the total warming.»

Stealth - You were involved in a long discussion of IR / ocean heating here, including the accuracy of OHC measurement, and in a discussion of the human contribution to warming here (thanks go to Google Search).

A more accurate characterization of human contribution to global warming would be: Damn right!

Rob — I'm not sure the magnitude of the human contribution is controversial enough to demand extensive discussion in its own right, but I'm intrigued by your arguments nonetheless.

Dr Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama is one of the few scientists who minimize the importance of the human contribution to recent climate change.

But what is being disputed is the size and nature of the human contribution to global warming.

At issue is the extent of the human contribution to the observable late 20thy Century warming in places like Australia, and whether we have catastrophic global warming.

Zbigniew Jaworowski [1994, 1992] has repeatedly pointed to the unreliability of ice - core data to establish pre-1958 CO2 concentrations, thus creating doubt about the magnitude of the human contribution to the current atmospheric CO2 concentration.

Despite dataset and modelling uncertainty, these results, together with the understanding of the causes of observed warming over the past century, provide substantial evidence of a human contribution to the observed decline in Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover extent.

I suggest it is even less worthwhile in the blame - humans debate, as satellite temperatures, estimation of temperatures in past centuries and millenia, calculation of human contribution to CO2 increase, physics of CO2's effect on heat flow in the atmosphere, and inaccuracy of theories («models») are far more important.

There must be sinks that can absorb both half of the human contribution and all of this additional source.

Some are specific about quantifying the percentage of human contribution, others just say «humans are causing climate change» without specific quantification.

I brought up the whole period since 1959, because the evidence for the dominance of the human contribution is the stronger the larger part of the period of accurate CO2 measurements is included.

It's misleading to say that about half of the human contribution is sequestered on average year.

However, there remains a lack of scientific consensus on the issue — on the extent of the warming, the extent of the human contribution, and the severity of the risk — and I believe we must support continued debate and investigation within the scientific community.

If Salby can resolve this issue about the lack of significance of the human contribution then we can forget AGW and move towards the truth about climate changes undistracted and unobstructed.

This is exactly what I was getting at, and it's a whole lot different from the PDF shown above which states that «the probability of the human contribution being less than 50 % is almost nil» or in Gavin Schmidt's words «p < 0.0001».

How could the IPCC provide an estimate of human contribution to temperature changes if they did not also provide an estimate of climate sensitivity?

Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, a climate expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who has been a prominent dissenter from the view that human activity is altering climate, helped write one chapter of the assessment but is skeptical about the importance of the human contribution to any future warming.

Here is one way of putting this: Why exactly should I care about the effect size of the human contribution to climate or extreme weather probabilities?

Natural variability and maybe a little bit of a human contribution.

I would answer: keep in mind that, f.e., energy required for ice melting and due to GHGs (our «contribution») does not increases temperatures... You also have an explanation from «skepticalscience»:»... Most studies showed that recent natural contributions have been in the cooling direction, thereby masking part of the human contribution and in some cases causing it to exceed 100 % of the total warming».

This kind of position first demands clear evidence to back up the existence of human contribution.

Not exact matches

Meaningful contributions to business processes are increasingly recognized as within the purview of active human resource management practices.

Another important principle, articulated by Michael Armstrong in his book A Handbook of Human Resource Management, is that business success «is most likely to be achieved if the personnel policies and procedures of the enterprise are closely linked with, and make a major contribution to, the achievement of corporate objectives and strategic plans.»

This is a familiar dodge - emphasizing uncertainty about the precise amount of humanity's contribution while ignoring the broad scientific consensus that human activities are largely responsible for dangerous warming of our planet and that action is urgently needed before it is too late.

The amount of Cook's contribution to the Washington - based Human Rights Campaign wasn't disclosed, but the advocacy organization called it «substantial.»

For the next couple of decades, the greatest contribution of A.I. is writing software that humans simply can't write.

Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist at the US National Center for Atmospheric Research, told the Atlantic, «The human contribution can be up to 30 percent or so up to the total rainfall coming out of the storm.

Ecosystem goods and services have most recently been defined as «the direct and indirect contributions of ecosystems to human well - being,» which can further be divided into one of four broad categories: regulating services (e.g. flood mitigation, water purification), provisioning services (e.g. food), habitat or supporting services (e.g. spawning grounds) and cultural services (e.g. recreational opportunities)(see here for an excellent explanation of these categories).

A fair number of crowdfunding contributions are «impulse buys,» so a genuine human story that the audience can relate to, will grab their attention and convince them to contribute.

Over the 42 years (and more) of being fascinated with the reality of God, I've explored the human experience in ways I'm not proud of, and had to come to grips with very primal realities that all human beings face, especially self - regulation, care and contribution.

«He was an artist and she would bear his children and wash his clothes and care for him because there lay her immortality, there lay her own contribution to the great effort to speak the truth, to shape words, to write the novel that by existing would justify the human endeavor, an endeavor so clearly in need of justification,» she writes observing Doc Humes» wife.

«In short, under his leadership US IRF policy can advance human rights and, at the same time, make substantial contributions to the national security of the United States at very low cost.»

These men and women have fought for the abolition of slavery (Wilberforce), established orphanages for abandoned children (Mueller), advanced civil rights for racial minorities (King), fought against HIV / AIDS (Koop), provided human touch, restored dignity, and shelter for the poor (Mother Teresa), created places of belonging and contribution for people with disabilities and special needs (Tada), and fought against the sex trade and human trafficking (Caine).

In the long run, these ways of reducing our use of exhaustible resources and our contribution to pollution also save us money, and this can be used to meet human needs that are more urgent than our comfort.