Sentences with phrase «total human contribution»

The total human contribution is estimated to be a little larger than warming by CO2 alone.

The total human contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide since the start of the industrial revolution has been estimated at about 25 % [6].

Not exact matches

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.

Depending on oneâ $ ™ s chosen diet, naturally occurring and manufac - tured resistant starch, as well as that produced during normal processing of foods for human consumption, could make a significant contribution to daily Total Fiber intake.

Given the tremendous economic contribution by upwards of one million illegal Burmese migrants to the Thai economy — which was reported in 2007 to total roughly US $ 53 million (3) per year — forcing refugees into dependence is a waste of human productivity not to mention a denigration of human rights and social well being for the population.

The earth is not a greenhouse and the IPCC itself says that human contribution to CO2 levels amount to 4 % of the total from all emissions.

60 % saturation is very significant when total current CO2 is only 1 % of the IR resonating gasses and the human contribution is at most 1/3 of that 1 %.

Seems like Hoskins confused fossil fuel contributions with total anthropogenic contributions, 40 % with 64 %, and a source saying more than twice the total increase had been emitted by humans with one that said less than half.

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.»

Ask someone using C12 / C13 to show you the data they used to determine what they believe the human contribution % was to total atmospheric CO2 for the last (X) years.

The total size does not change much on human time scales, and our contribution to changes in the composition is tiny (less than 0.1 %).

Second, the only CO2 «source» or «sink» actually being measured IS the minuscule «human contribution» of 3 - 4 % of the «estimated» total of CO2 sources — and sinks aren't being measured.

No matter if human emissions are 3 % or 0.3 % or 0.03 % of the natural sources, the former are additional, while the latter only circulate in and out, without any contribution tot the total mass of CO2.

The human contribution as part of the total CO2 exchange is far too small yet that is what has previously been proposed and Salby has called out on the issue.

Clearly, somebody forgot to tell these lunatics that human contribution to total carbon emissions is only 2.9 %.

Any anthropogenic CO2 influence would only have been significant, if at all, since about 1945 because before that date the human contribution to total atmospheric CO2 was relatively minor and, in my opinion, probably insignificant as a climate driver.

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».