Sentences with phrase «without human contributions»

It also contains a case study into the record hot Australian summer of 2012/13 and record hot calendar year of 2013, concluding that the record hot summer «was about five times as likely as a result of human - induced influence on cliimate» and that the record hot calendar «would have been virtually impossible without human contributions of heat - trapping gases.»

Include in your math the fact that even without human contribution, the rate of natural CO2 growth would have brought us to the current level not terribly far into the future and then beyond Hansen's tipping point not long after that.

Based on temperature records from 1864 to 2002, the odds of such a heatwave occurring are about 1 in 10 million.4 An event like the 2003 heatwave becomes much more likely after factoring in the observed warming of 2 °F over Europe and increased weather variability.5 In addition, comparing computer models of climate with and without human contribution shows that human influence has roughly quadrupled the odds of a European summer as hot as or hotter than the summer of 2003.6

Without the human contribution the local and regional sinks would be less active and the natural system would be a net source producing a solely natural rise of 30 units or 50 units as the case may be.

Not exact matches

It may seem that to emphasize the pervasive operation of the Holy Spirit, as well as to stress the Spirit's focal action in the life of Jesus and its consequences, will in the end reduce men and women to mere automatons used by God with no respect for their freedom, their dignity, and their own responsible decisions, without any personal or social human contribution to the process.

The human species currently consists of some six billion individuals spread around the globe in millions of groups large and small, all focused on their own affairs without much concept of any ultimate goal, or the value of their contribution.

So we are within the range of normal up - and - down fluctuations without human greenhouse contributions that could be significant, or even measurable.

Others endorse the consensus without quantifying the human contribution.

Explicit endorsements were divided into non-quantified (e.g., humans are contributing to global warming without quantifying the contribution) and quantified (e.g., humans are contributing more than 50 % of global warming, consistent with the 2007 IPCC statement that most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations

You do admit that categories 2 and 3 were assumed, without any freaking basis, to endorse the alleged > 50 % human contribution consensus?

«Explicit endorsements were divided into non-quantified (e.g., humans are contributing to global warming without quantifying the contribution) and quantified (e.g., humans are contributing more than 50 % of global warming, consistent with the 2007 IPCC statement that most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations).»

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.

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

While humans without doubt impact our environment, why would we now suddenly assume that our contribution is the dominant factor, when current changes are clearly within the range of historical changes where we could have had no impact.

Accepting AGW without quantifying the human contribution means the papers could accept any value between 0 and 100 %.

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»»

Just in case it is not clear, this is the exact statement in the paper that I was basing my understanding on Explicit endorsements were divided into non-quantified (e.g., humans are contributing to global warming without quantifying the contribution) and quantified (e.g., humans are contributing more than 50 % of global warming, consistent with the 2007 IPCC statement that most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations).

Without entering into the controversial debate concerning the scope and content of the principle of mutual trust and its relationship to human rights protection (see in particular the contribution by D. Halberstam) from an autonomy perspective the Court is clear that autonomy is breached when Member States assume obligations in inter se relations that may conflict with a rule of EU law.