Sentences with phrase «record human emissions»

Not exact matches

Yeo, for the record, is sure that the increase in carbon emissions is due to us pesky humans, but accepts «there may be other long - term cycles at work».

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 long record has charted the steep rise of the greenhouse gas — the most prevalent in Earth's atmosphere — as a result of human emissions.

Dr. Raichle's research led to the development and use of positron emission tomography and functional magnetic resonance imaging, tools that have enabled scientists to safely and non-invasively study the living human brain and track and record its function in health and disease.

The disagreement comes only over Berkeley Earth's use of a simple model fitting the temperature record for the past 250 years to human CO2 emissions and volcanoes to conclude that the best explanation for the observed warming is greenhouse gas emissions.

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.

That is why the annual CO2 increase in the atmosphere also varies greatly each year, and this short - term variation is not mainly caused by variations in our emissions (so a record CO2 increase in the atmosphere in an El Niño year does not mean that human emissions have surged in that year).

3 claims that the GHG human emission rate is approximately 2 times larger than the observed rate during the last decades, so if the Sun drives a little bit the CO2 and CH4 cycle mechanisms (which in this case are absorbing large amount of CO2 and CH4 from the atmosphere) it might leave a signal in the CO2 and CH4 record as well.

Despite the absence of warming in actual measured temperature records over the last 16 years, and near - record lows in hurricane and tornado activity, they still cry «wolf» repeatedly and try to connect every unusual or «extreme» weather event to human emissions of plant - fertilizing carbon dioxide.

Rob — I'm not sure why you think the human origin of post-industrial CO2 increases is a subject of much uncertainty, since the conclusion resides in the convergence of multiple lines of evidence that include measurements of C14, C13, C12, atmospheric oxygen, volcanic activity, and records of industrial emissions.

When flatlining temperatures wreck your global warming agenda, refusing to rise after 18 + long years in hiatus, despite record human CO2 emissions over that same period, simply homogenise, adjust (tamper) with the data.

And over that time period humans have emitted over 30 % of ALL the CO2 emissions they EVER emitted, and the atmospheric concentration has reached all - time record levels.

And this at the same time that human GHG emissions are continuing unabated and concentrations have reached all - time record levels.

Who wants to go on record first admitting that human ghg emissions dominate global temperature changes?

«That's conclusive evidence in my view that human driven emission of greenhouse gases were the primary cause of 2013 being the hottest year on record.

manacker: If I understood Mike Rossander's calculation as cited by Mike Jonas above, it shows that your poster linking human CO2 emissions to multidecadal climate in the past record does not hold water statistically.

If I understood Mike Rossander's calculation as cited by Mike Jonas above, it shows that your poster linking human CO2 emissions to multidecadal climate in the past record does not hold water statistically.

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.

But the most convincing counterforce is Mother Nature, herself — and if she gives us another decade of slight cooling or at least no warming, despite continued unabated human GHG emissions and concentrations reaching record levels, she will essentially have killed this strange form of delusion called CAGW.

And besides, Jim, in case you failed to get the world, accelerated warming stopped around 2001, despite unabated human CO2 emissions and CO2 concentrations reaching new record levels.

Even if it had in fact been the warmest August since records began, there are numerous potential explanations for such a development that have nothing to do with human emissions of the «gas of life» carbon dioxide or alleged «anthropogenic global warming.»

And the more decades we have of no warming despite unabated human GHG emissions and atmospheric GHG concentrations reaching record levels, the more the case for an AGW driven climate unravels (the underlying message of the DM article).

Tropical cyclone activity and intensity increasing Record droughts, floods, heat waves, cold spells, high tides occurring Unequivocal warming of the climate system observed with very high confidence that human activities are to blame Temperature rising even more dramatically in Arctic, threatening ice loss and extinction of species Halving human CO2 emissions immediately might save the planet from catastrophe.

It's pretty hard to «overinterpret» a 10 + year stop in global warming (actual slight cooling instead), despite unabated human GHG emissions and concentrations reaching record levels, plus IPCC model - based predictions of 0.2 C per decade warming.

-- Muller believes humans are changing climate with CO2 emissions — humans have been responsible for «most» of a 0.4 C warming since 1957, almost none of the warming before then — IPCC is in trouble due to sloppy science, exaggerated predictions; chairman will have to resign — the «Climategate» mails were not «hacked» — they were «leaked» by an insider — due to «hide the decline» deception, Muller will not read any future papers by Michael Mann — there has been no increase in hurricanes or tornadoes due to global warming — automobiles are insignificant in overall picture — China is the major CO2 producer, considerably more than USA today — # 1 priority for China is growth of economy — global warming is not considered important — China CO2 efficiency (GDP per ton CO2) is around one - fourth of USA today, has much room for improvement — China growth will make per capita CO2 emissions at same level as USA today by year 2040 — if it is «not profitable» it is «not sustainable» — US energy future depends on shale gas for automobiles; hydrogen will not be a factor — nor will electric cars, due to high cost — Muller is upbeat on nuclear (this was recorded pre-Fukushima)-- there has been no warming in the USA — Muller was not convinced of Hansen's GISS temperature record; hopes BEST will provide a better record.

However you slice it, lolwot, there is a current «pause» (or «standstill») in the warming of the «globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature anomaly» (used by IPCC to measure «global warming»), despite unabated human GHG emissions and CO2 levels (Mauna Loa) reaching record levels.

How» bout we respond with: «the same mechanism that has caused the observed recent decade of slight cooling despite unabated human CO2 emissions and concentrations reaching record levels»?

He pointed out that the coral record indicates that the recent period of intense swings started before 1900, long before the peak of emissions of heat - trapping gases from human activities.

Manacker, this argument «observed recent decade of slight cooling [of surface temps] despite unabated human CO2 emissions and concentrations reaching record levels» would be relevant if it was posited that CO2 is the only influence on climate.

The «uncertainties» regarding the attribution of late 20th C warming have only INCREASED as a result of the decadal «pause» in warming, despite unabated human GHG emissions and levels reaching record levels.

The IPCC hypothesis that AGW, caused principally by human CO2 emissions, has been the primary cause of past warming and that it represents a serious potential threat to humanity or our environment is an «uncorroborated hypothesis» at this time, unless one agrees with Pielke that the recent decadal lack of warming of the atmosphere (surface plus troposphere) as well as the upper ocean despite record increase in CO2 levels has falsified it, in which case it has become a «falsified hypothesis», until such time that the falsification can be refuted with empirical evidence.

According to Stone, cases where the link between human - generated greenhouse gas emissions and local warming trends were weak were often due to the fact that the climate observational record was insufficient in those regions to build a clear picture about what has been happening over the past several decades.

Only when the trends for human - induced heat - trapping gases, sulfur dioxide emissions, soot, ozone, and land use changes are also included do the hindcast model results (Figure 3) and the recorded reality match up.

By then comparing the results of these Industrial and Non-industrial simulated climates, and recording the occurrence of floods like that of Autumn 2000 in each of them, the change in the frequency of occurrence (or «risk») of such a flood was determined, and therefore how much risk is attributable to human - induced emissions of greenhouse gases over the last century.

Further, note that there is no sign in the Mona Loa record of any variations in CO2 increase as human emissions have varied.

Needless to say, the most direct evidence involves the record of human emissions such that these are about twice what has been added to the atmospheric concentration, and must be accounted for — they can't simply disappear.

Your example does not explain where the 30 billion tons of human emissions goes, it doesn't explain why CO2 is rising, it doesn't explain why the rise has accelerated, and it requires the ice core records to be wrong.

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.

Until IPCC come to terms with the current «lack of warming» despite unabated human GHG emissions and concentrations reaching record levels, they are avoiding or ignoring an important «data point» in the «science» (because it doesn't fit the «religious beliefs»?).

Now (all of a sudden) they are deemed to be strong enough to overshadow unabated human GHG emissions and concentrations, which have risen to all - time record levels.

E.g., research assumes greenhouse gas emissions cause warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause»... carbon sequestration in soil is important for mitigating global climate change» (4a) No position Does not address or mention the cause of global warming (4b) Uncertain Expresses position that human's role on recent global warming is uncertain / undefined «While the extent of human - induced global warming is inconclusive...» (5) Implicit rejection Implies humans have had a minimal impact on global warming without saying so explicitly E.g., proposing a natural mechanism is the main cause of global warming»... anywhere from a major portion to all of the warming of the 20th century could plausibly result from natural causes according to these results» (6) Explicit rejection without quantification Explicitly minimizes or rejects that humans are causing global warming»... the global temperature record provides little support for the catastrophic view of the greenhouse effect» (7) Explicit rejection with quantification Explicitly states that humans are causing less than half of global warming «The human contribution to the CO2 content in the atmosphere and the increase in temperature is negligible in comparison with other sources of carbon dioxide emission»»

While I am pretty sure IPCC won't repeat the silly mistake of projecting global warming of 0.2 C per decade for the next two decades (as it did in AR4), it will be interesting to see whether or not IPCC modifies its AR5 report to include the possibility of continued global cooling over the next two or three decades despite unabated human GHG emissions and concentrations expected to reach new record levels.

Also, I am missing a specific statement that acknowledges that the short - term warming projections of TAR (0.15 ° to 0.3 °C per decade) and AR4 (0.2 °C per decade) turned out to be wrong, i.e. there has been no warming since the end of 2000, despite unabated human GHG emissions and atmospheric concentrations reaching record levels.

«In truth only one component of the CO2 budget is known with any certainty, human emissions, implicitly through records of extraction - how much coal and oil are dug up»

Others have argued that the records were caused by El Nino, a complex natural phenomenon that takes place every few years, and has nothing to do with greenhouse gas emissions by humans.

The local record from Mauna Loa therefore approximates the global mean, which through its growth rate chronicles the history of net global emissions, collectively from all sources, human and natural.»

Now IPCC (AR5 draft) is telling us that «natural factors» have completely overwhelmed record CO2 (and other GHG) emissions since 1998 (over 30 % of ALL the CO2 EVER emitted by humans!).

This point also becomes clear when one sees that there has been no warming over the past decade or more despite unabated human GHG emissions and CO2 concentrations reaching record levels.

While Christy only considered the possibility that climate models are wrong, Taylor considered three possibilities: (1) the surface temperature record is biased high, (2) a factor other than human greenhouse gas emissions is causing global warming, or (3) the «assumptions about greenhouse gas theory are wrong.»

The IPCC has chosen 1950 as the starting point for their confabulations, because they have the preconceived notion that human GHG emissions (mainly CO2) are the main drivers of the global temperature (the CAGW enthusiasts prefer the post - satellite era because it renders a trend of about 0.16 °C / decade, even though they invariably select one of the terrestrial records, usually GISTEMP).