Sentences with phrase «without human emissions»

That is, even without human emissions, the land was emitting more CO2 than the ocean could soak up.

You mean without human emissions?

Without human emissions and temperature changes, everything was in balance: as much CO2 was entering the cold oceans (and vegetation growth) as was emitted by the warm oceans (and rotting vegetation).

Finally, the researchers examined collections of model simulations with and without human emissions factored in to understand to what degree human emissions were responsible for a given impact, by comparing these simulations against observed trends.

First you need to know what the arctic would be like now without the human emissions.

Maybe there would be no correlation without the human emissions, but that would be a speculation at this point.

Its not impossible that the ground level would look different without human emissions.

But the horrible fact is, without human emissions we are almost certainly still living in the Pleistocene.

«The answer is that year, 2013, being the hottest year in Australia ever, was virtually impossible without human emission of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Not exact matches

«Even without the catalytic mufflers, there are much lower emissions of air pollutants that can have adverse effects on human health and promote the formation of smog.»

If wetland soils dry out from evaporation or human drainage, emissions will fall — but not without other problems.

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.

We could drastically cut back on human - generated carbon emissions without giving up on an energy source that could last us a century or more.

Basically, they say that let's see what the climate will do when we remove humans entirely, whereas other studies have asked: what will the climate do if we continue to pollute as usual, but without increased emissions.

All five research groups came to the conclusion that last year's heat waves could not have been as severe without the long - term climatic warming caused by human emissions.

However, reams of peer - reviewed research, basic physics, the ability to track the specific chemical fingerprint of fossil fuel - driven carbon, and the fact that no models can replicate this century's warming without pumping up carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere give scientists confidence that human carbon emissions are driving the globe's temperature higher.

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.

The impression is given that human emissions are not a big deal and only responsible for a small percentage of the CO2 increase in the atmosphere — but without explicitly saying that.

Says it all... without further definition as to how much does human activity (not just human combustion CO2 emissions) contribute to the observed warming, we are going nowhere.

Such a 35 percent equivalent emission, happening year on year for centuries, would be more than enough to push Earth into a runaway hothouse scenario without any further human greenhouse gas releases.

Science Paper: One of the key papers describing the benefits of emissions controls is the journal paper «Simultaneously Mitigating Near - Term Climate Change and Improving Human Health and Food Security», Shindell et al., Science, 2012, which can be freely accessed without a subscription courtesy of Science.

All five research groups came to the conclusion that last year's heat waves could not have been as severe without the long - term climatic warming caused by human emissions.

And yes, Steven, writing a scientific paper about something that is 0.005 % of human emissions, AND releasing a press release about it, without in either case pointing out it is a pathetically trivial 0.005 % of the emissions, is definitely hyping their study...

EPA acted on the court's decision with its 2009 «endangerment finding,» which exhaustively reviewed the science and concluded that, without action, rising CO2 emissions would likely result in dangerous warming trends harmful to human health and the economy.

The $ 30 million overhaul was made without installing, as required under the New Source Review requirements of the Clean Air Act, the best available technology to minimize emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides — pollutants that harm human health by contributing to heart attacks, breathing problems, and other health problems, the suit alleges.

Le Chatelier's principle from physical chemistry guarantees that the oceans will always absorb around 50 % of human emissions even without the help of the biosphere.

If wetland soils dry out from evaporation or human drainage, though, emissions will fall — but not without other problems, like wildfires breaking out on drying peatlands.

After that, the planet warmed without significant human carbon emissions to blame, so what caused it?

A fifth of global human - caused carbon emissions today are absorbed by terrestrial ecosystems; this important carbon sink operates largely without human intervention, but could be increased through a concerted effort to reduce forest loss and to restore damaged ecosystems, which also co-benefits the conservation of biodiversity.

«It is undeniably true that global temperature increases have been far, far less than doomsday computer models predicted — about three times smaller, and there are good reasons to suspect the increases from further human CO2 emissions would be smaller still, without imposing draconian regulations.

Good post David... «Several of these media articles assert that our study claims the entire Earth heated up during medieval times without human CO2 emissions.

E.g., research assumes greenhouse gas emissions cause warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause)

«This central truth must be stated without equivocation: control of the emission of human - induced greenhouse gases will not halt climate change.

This means the IPCC is tasked with finding a human effect of human carbon dioxide emissions on the climate, whereas NIPCC looks at climate change «in the round,» without bias.

Given that human populations in the developed world are already declining, and that CO2 emissions appear to have peaked — without police state intrusions, all of this points to an embarrassing waste of time.

A large number of risks exist that incent reducing atmospheric pCO2, and human emissions of fossil carbon, as quickly as possible without impacting other important considerations.

They ran climate models thousands of times, and simulated a world with human CO2 emissions and a world without them.

So unless the figure for the emissions takes that into account, and I don't think it does, although I may and I hope I am wrong, we can't really count those as human - induced emission, we can only count the difference between those and what large herbivores in a world without humans would emit.

They also discovered that such a huge shift in the jet stream would not have been possible without anthropogenic, or human - caused, greenhouse gas emissions.

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.

It doesn't matter why the world has warmed in order to say there is a net co2 sink without taking into account human emissions you have to be making that argument.

Therefore, the claim that the models can not account for post-1970 warming without including human emissions means nothing scientifically.

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»»

Of course, it could be possible that there is some yet undiscovered mechanism that only absorbs human CO2 (otherwise it would absorb natural CO2 in the absence of our emissions) and some other mechanism that caused a great imbalance in natural sources / sinks causing the increase without a corresponding temperature change.

I challenge YOU to show, by using the basic physics involved, that current warming patterns can explained without including human CO2 emissions.

This project ran two climate model experiments: one, «Historical» included both human - caused greenhouse gas emissions and natural emissions, such as volcanoes; the second, «HistorialNat» included only the natural emissions, and deliberately left out human - caused emissions, to see how the climate might have changed without them.

Basically, they say that let's see what the climate will do when we remove humans entirely, whereas other studies have asked: what will the climate do if we continue to pollute as usual, but without increased emissions.

And even more troubling than the crippling drought itself was the notion that human caused global warming was a contributing factor, and that without reductions in CO2 emissions, such extended dry seasons would become common in the future.

Specifically, key parameters of the Human System, such as fertility, health, migration, economic inequality, unemployment, GDP per capita, resource use per capita, and emissions per capita, must depend on the dynamic variables of the Human — Earth coupled system.26 Not including these feedbacks would be like trying to make El Niño predictions using dynamic atmospheric models but with sea surface temperatures as an external input based on future projections independently produced (e.g., by the UN) without feedbacks.

We therefore examine the human health benefits of increasing 21st - century CO2 reductions by 180 GtC, an amount that would shift a «standard» 2 °C scenario to 1.5 °C or could achieve 2 °C without negative emissions.