Sentences with phrase «recent human emissions»

And is it just coincidence that it matches recent human emissions?

Not exact matches

The findings are the first to note increased greenhouse gas emissions due to antibiotic use in cattle; a recent study suggests that methane emissions from cud - chewing livestock worldwide, including cows, account for about 4 % of the greenhouse gas emissions related to human activity.

Thus, he notes, the increase in emissions seen in recent years likely stems from human sources.

Since levels of greenhouse gases have continued to rise throughout the period, some skeptics have argued that the recent pattern undercuts the theory that global warming in the industrial era has been caused largely by human - made emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.

«The amount and diversity of pesticides, pharmaceuticals and other industrial chemicals that humans are releasing into the environment are increasing at rates that match or exceed recent increases in CO2 emissions, nutrient pollution from nitrogen fertilizers, and other drivers of global change,» Bernhardt said.

«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.»

As the graph below from Spracklen's News and Views article shows, the balance between warming (red shading) and cooling (blue shading) have kept the country's contribution to human - caused climate change pegged at about 10 % in recent decades, despite soaring fossil fuel emissions.

Still, a great portion of the «summary for policymakers» deals with the recent temperature rise, and it concludes that it's «likely» that there is a human contribution to the observed trend (by which I assume CO2 emissions are especially understood, even more so considered the negative forcings mentioned).

This is larger than recent years because of El Niño, and also larger than during the previous El Niño in 1997/98 because human emissions have risen since then.

For example, the report summarizes recent research underpinning the scientific rationale for large and rapid reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions, in order to reduce the likelihood of dangerous human - induced climate change.

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.

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.»

A) Those who think that governments around the world should take action to reduce CO2 emissions because data collected in the last 30 years indicates that recent changes in climate can be traced to CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels during various human activities.

This instrument delivers important, and sobering, studies — such as the recent finding that as anthropogenic (human - caused) warming occurs, lakes naturally emit more methane which accelerates the warming further (or makes our cuts in emission worth more, if you want to look at the positive side).

Human emissions at recent levels are equivalent to an annual increase in concentration of 4.5 ppmv per year.

Some 98 percent of working climate scientists agree that the atmosphere is already warming in response to human greenhouse - gas emissions, and the most recent research suggests that we are on a path toward what were once considered «worst case» scenarios.

In a press release boldly titled «Nature, Not Man, is Responsible for Recent Global Warming,» study coauthor Bob Carter claimed that the findings left «little room for any warming driven by human carbon dioxide emissions».

One recent study found that the average global temperature would rise another 3.2 ° by the end of the century even if human carbon emissions dropped to zero tomorrow, a scenario that is, of course, extremely unlikely.

Personally, I doubt that human CO2 emissions have been responsible for the recent warming, but that's just one voter's opinion.

Testable version of Null Hypothesis popular in recent years: If humans do not change current CO2 emission rates, the earth climate will experience a «hockey stick» increase in temperature.

In the case of climatology, I suppose this should have involved an experiment / investigation showing that recent warming can ONLY or MOSTLY be attributed to human forcings (e.g.; CO2 emissions) and not to natural and / or unknown causes.

These facts help explain why, in spite of the Earth's air temperature increasing to a level that the IPCC claims is unprecedented in the the past millennium or more, a recent study by Randall et al. (2013) found that the 14 % extra carbon dioxide fertilization caused by human emissions between 1982 and 2010 caused an average worldwide increase in vegetation foliage by 11 % after adjusting the data for precipitation effects.

Recent scientific studies have made a strong link between the historic California drought and ongoing changes to Earth's climate resulting from human greenhouse gas emissions.

One needs only point out that, although human CO2 emissions have skyrockets in recent years, atmospheric CO2 has been plodding along increasing relatively linearly.

This is the belief backed up by the scientific evidence; in the most recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in September 2013, scientists agreed that it is «extremely likely» that human emissions of greenhouse gases are causing the planet to warm.

One passage written by Heartland reads, «Scientists who study the issue say it is impossible to tell if the recent small warming trend is natural, a continuation of the planet's recovery from the more recent «Little Ice Age,» or unnatural, the result of human greenhouse gas emissions.»

Steffen has no idea whether human emissions are the «main contribution» to recent warming because no - one does.

At least four elite scientific organizations have issued public statements favoring the idea that human emissions of CO2 do drive recent global temperature rises:

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.

The most recent report of the International Panel on Climate Change says it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of this warming which is driven by the build up of carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion, cement production, and land use changes.

Based on the evidence as it currently exists, it just is not a valid scientific position to assert with certainty that human emissions have caused recent changes to the climate, and therefore the policy implications that stem from that.

«it just is not a valid scientific position to assert with certainty that human emissions have caused recent changes to the climate, and therefore the policy implications that stem from that»

It also states, «many lines of evidence demonstrate that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse (heat - trapping) gases, are primarily responsible for recent observed climate change.»

They concluded, among other things, that «Many lines of evidence demonstrate that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse (heat - trapping) gases, are primarily responsible for recent observed climate change.»

Recent polls show a solid majority of Americans reject the man - made global - warming theory pushed by Obama, the UN, and other governments desperate to impose new taxes and regulations on CO2 — a natural gas exhaled by humans and required for plants, human emissions of which make up a fraction of one percent of all the greenhouse gases present naturally in the atmosphere.

Concerning the recent warming believed to be caused by manmade CO2 emissions, in the scrutiny of my own I have found that the assessments of IPCC are totally wrong: on the basis of cutting of human CO2 emissions there is impossible to reach any working decision to control warming.

There is overwhelming evidence that humans are the dominant cause of the recent global warming, mainly due to our greenhouse gas emissions.

As the recent global warming rate is identical to the pervious one, if human emission of CO2 had any effect on global temperature, the global warming rate for the period from 1970 to 2000, after 60 years of human emission of CO2, would have been greater than that for the period from 1910 to 1940.

Thus it is entirely unsurprising that these short - term effects all aligning in the cooling direction in recent years have offset much of the surface warming caused by human greenhouse gas emissions.

Any warming observed prior to WWII is indicative of «global warming» (GW), but (since there were no significant human GHG emissions yet) is counterindicative of anthropogenic greenhouse warming (AGW), since something other than human GHGs caused it, raising the question: if non GH warming caused this warming, could it not also have caused the most recent extended warming period?

Second, and more embarrassing for the «experts,» despite a huge increase in human CO2 emissions over recent decades our planet stubbornly refuses to get any warmer.

A number of recent studies have found a strong link between peak human - induced global warming and cumulative carbon emissions from the start of the industrial revolution, while the link to emissions over shorter periods or in the years 2020 or 2050 is generally weaker.

Needless to say, global warming from human CO2 emissions is an exceptional yawner, and is in no sense a current legitimate threat when viewed in the context of recent climate history.

To date, while various effects and feedbacks constrain the certainty placed on recent and projected climate change (EG, albedo change, the response of water vapour, various future emissions scenarios etc), it is virtually certain that CO2 increases from human industry have reversed and will continue to reverse the downward trend in global temperatures that should be expected in the current phase of the Milankovitch cycle.

The extremist green movement is the principal driver behind the story that recent climate change is the result of humans - more specifically, the result of consumer / industrial fossil fuel emissions.

And this unprecedented warming of ocean waters occurred during a 30 - year period when human CO2 emissions were some 85 % less than the modern era (166 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions versus 784 billion tonnes for the most recent 30 - year span).

Oil companies are expected to argue human greenhouse gas emissions were the main driver of recent global warming and that it is a problem, but their legal filings contest their liability and the use of courts to settle what's considered a global matter.

Now, adding to this miserably low warming influence of CO2 is the recent admission by establishment climate science that natural climatic forces have a powerful say in the trend of global temperatures, regardless of human CO2 emissions.

In spite of massive human CO2 emissions, a recent state of cooling changes dominate in the U.S. (see last two blue columns).

IOW something (which we can not explain as yet) is causing the recent «pause» in warming despite unabated human CO2 emissions; and this «something» may just continue for a while.