Sentences with phrase «al. claiming the warming»

There's been a little discussion of a non-peer reviewed (so far) paper published by Anthony Watts et al. claiming the warming at the best - sited US weather stations is two - thirds» that estimated by NOAA for the US based on the entire adjusted weather station record.

Not exact matches

We've seen a bizarre (well, if you know the climate denialist scene, not so bizarre) misreporting about Millar et al., focusing on the claim that climate models have supposedly overestimated global warming.

BTW, the authors continue considering both the LIA and the MWP as valid concepts, contrary to Mann et al. 2) Even though they have little confidence in temperature reconstructions previous to AD 1600 and very little for those previous to AD 900, the authors consider that Mann et al's claim of the last decades being warmer than any such period in the past millennium is nonetheless plausible.

How do Levitus et al. do the attribution part of their study, when they claim that the warming can only be explained by the increase in atmospheric GHGs?

The Mann et al. studies seemed to vindicate those who had been claiming that the recent global warming was unusual and «man - made».

For a while Spencer et al. were claiming that their data didn't show warming, but then errors were found in their analysis method.

This is an important point, because Christy is constantly claiming that his UAH satellite temperature record is the gold standard, contrary to other research, for example Mears et al. 2011 and Thorne et al. 2011, which note that the satellite data possibly have outstanding issues, and contrary to the Watts and Christy preliminary paper in which the amount of warming the authors claim is happening in the United States is inconsistent with the amount of warming in the UAH record.

In the Comment by Nuccitelli et al., they make many false and invalid criticisms of the CFC - warming theory in my recent paper, and claim that their anthropogenic forcings including CO2 would provide a better explanation of the observed global mean surface temperature (GMST) data over the past 50 years.

True to climategate form, as the IPCC chapters continue to be leaked out, we can see the widespread attempt to ignore O [Donnell et al.] 10 and use the incorrect warming caused by math errors of S09 to claim that the Antarctic is in danger of melting — even though it is not.»

This all changed in the mid-2000s, when several researchers began publishing papers claiming to have finally discovered evidence proving that man - made global warming was increasing the frequency and intensity of tropical cyclones, e.g., Trenberth, 2005 (Abstract; Google Scholar access); Emmanuel, 2005 (Abstract; Google Scholar access); Webster et al., 2005 (Abstract; Google Scholar access); Trenberth & Shea, 2006 (Abstract; Google Scholar access); Mann & Emanuel, 2006 (Abstract; Google Scholar access); or Holland & Webster, 2007 (Open access).

According to the World Health Organization, climate change is already claiming more than 150,000 lives annually (Patz, Campbell - Lendrum, Holloway, & Foley, 2005), and estimates of future migrations triggered by unmitigated global warming run as high as 187 million refugees (Nicholls et al., 2011).

Warming has been occurring but it is more muted than claimed by Tom Karl et al..

Were Rose and Curry Skeptical Science readers, they would have known several days prior to the publication of this article that the claim about global warming «pausing» in 1997 was pre-bunked by Nuccitelli et al., as Figure 3 clearly shows.

It would appear rather odd that Bhaskar et al. (2017) would wish to claim, for example, that methane gas has been a significant driver of warming, but at the same time reject water vapour and cloud cover changes as factors affecting global temperatures.

The fact that England, et al., can claim the «robust nature of twenty - first century warming projections» and «increased confidence «in IPCC projections, when their models are obviously incapable of resolving the climate energy state, merely shows that they can have no understanding whatever of the source of physical meaning.

However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic.

Anyone remember, when Spencer's UAH data showed supposedly no warming of the lower and mid troposphere, which was used by AGW - «Skeptics» back then to claim that global warming claims based on the surface temperature data were wrong, but turned out to be actually a problem with Spencer's own retrieval algorithm (Fu et al., Nature 2004, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature02524)?

«These analyses suggest that a contribution from ENSO - e ffects to global temperatures, when expressed as the cumulative sum of the SOI, can potentially account for 50 % of the variation in global mean temperature in the last 50 years — a «large part» of warming, as claimed by McLean et al. [2009].

«These analyses suggest that a contribution from ENSO - e ffects to global temperatures, when expressed as the cumulative sum of the SOI, can potentially account for 50 % of the variation in global mean temperature in the last 50 years -LCB- a «large part» of warming, as claimed by McLean et al. [2009].»

e.g. «These analyses suggest that a contribution from ENSO - e ffects to global temperatures, when expressed as the cumulative sum of the SOI, can potentially account for 50 % of the variation in global mean temperature in the last 50 years — a «large part» of warming, as claimed by McLean et al. [2009].

The more recent analysis of available Chinese data by Jones et al. (2008) showed, as the article states, that «far from being negligible [as claimed in the 1990 work], the urban heat phenomenon was responsible for 40 % of the warming seen in eastern China between 1951 and 2004 ″.