Sentences with phrase «argued current warming»

Happer and his colleagues did not challenge that CO2 causes warming, but argued current warming was within the bounds of natural variability and that human additions of greenhouse gases were an extremely small share of what nature throws up every year.

Sure, it only extends back to the 1880s and you could argue the current warming trend is a result of Earth «naturally» coming out of LIA.

Not exact matches

Given this simple fact, I can not see how Mr. Carson can argue so categorically that we ought not think that (a) global warming is occurring, and (b) that if it is occurring our current behavior is not partly responsible for it.

Responding to a recent article in Nature on the psychology of climate change, The Guardian «s Andrew Brown argues that combatting global warming will require something beyond carbon taxes, recycling programs, and technological innovation: There may be ways of fixing [the current....

But some researchers have argued that the transition from the frigid climatic period known as the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM)-- about 20,000 to 25,000 years ago — to the current warm Holocene Epoch brought habitat changes that killed off the mammoths with little or no help from humans.

Aaron Lewis > Does anyone want to argue that global warming in some way mitigated the current flood situation in South - East Asia?

And those who argue that «it's the Sun» fail to comprehend that we understand the major mechanisms by which the Sun influences the global climate, and that they can not explain the current global warming trend.

Ironically, prior to publishing a book in 2007 which blamed the current warming on D - O cycles, Singer argued that the planet wasn't warming as recently as 2003.

Some individuals, most notably Fred Singer, have argued that Dansgaard - Oeschger (D - O) events could be causing the current global warming.

Moore argued that the current argument that the burning of fossil fuels is driving global warming over the past century lacks scientific evidence.

Does anyone want to argue that global warming in some way mitigated the current flood situation in South - East Asia?

Aaron Lewis > Does anyone want to argue that global warming in some way mitigated the current flood situation in South - East Asia?

They should be able to argue it on the case of 1.5 - 3C warming by 2100 (which IMO seems to be our current course) if they think that is serious enough.

... it is sometimes argued that the severity of model - projected global warming can be taken less seriously on the grounds that models fail to simulate the current climate sufficiently accurately.

It is a «rubish argument» to argue that because there were warmings in the past, the current warming is not primarilly due to increased greenhouse gas concentrations, but that is a different argument from that which RiHo08 implied.

Chan and Liu (2004) argue that current models are not yet sufficiently good for addressing the question regarding global warming and typhoons (A typhoon is technically the same as a hurricane, the difference being that they form over the western Pacific or the Indean Ocean).

You could argue the paleo isn't refined enough for the current period, but there is nothing to suggest that the current warming will not continue at its current rate as long as we continue to emit.

Anyway it is a false comparison to compare old temperatures with new temperatures when asking «wht should we do» you need to compare «our solution» with «their solution» If you are advocating a political strategy you need to accept current proposed strategies will probably still result in the majority of the global warming predicted in the ordinary scenario (if not all of it — a point which I can argue if you like).

What lags what might seem like a good debate to have and one that has to be answered to as the skeptics for good scientists to set up sites like this to argue the cause but come on the evidence is clear, it is not the SUN that has caused the current warming and we have a perfectly robust argument for stating that it is greenhouse gases (all of which has increased).

The newest paper, in the current issue of Science, «Varying planetary heat sink led to global - warming slowdown and acceleration,» argues that the Atlantic not only has shaped the current plateau, but also was responsible for half of the sharp global warming at the end of the 20th century.

Arguing that climate has changed in the past therefore current warming is probably natural is legitimately regarded as being a weak, unconstructive, unphysical argument.

She then argues that this can't be attributed to human - caused global warming, which presumably implies something about the current rise in ocean heat content.

And those who argue that «it's the Sun» fail to comprehend that we understand the major mechanisms by which the Sun influences the global climate, and that they can not explain the current global warming trend.

And those who argue «it's just a natural cycle» can never seem to identify exactly which natural cycle can explain the current warming, nor can they explain how our understanding of the fundamental climate physics is wrong.

If you really try to argue that something can't be the driver of the current warming (not world climate) because of the small concentration, you've already lost the argument.

-- never predicted monotonic warming — never predicted that natural variability would cease — do argue for significant warming by the end of the century — suggest several possible causes for the current warming hiatus * — reject claims that the hiatus invalidates any of the above on grounds of robust physics and parsimonious reasoning

But the new study shows that the current warming can be fully explained by including ENSO variations in the analysis and that while changes in CO2 levels must be considered in the analysis, it turned out that they can safely be ignored, which is even more than most skeptics have long argued.

To be clear, viewed in isolation with all other things being equal a warmer MCO is compatible with higher sensitivity, but the ratio of the MCO temperature to that current does not argue directly to the sensitivity one way or the other, but it does argue as to the ratio of the forcings.

San Francisco and Oakland are suing five major oil companies, including ExxonMobil, for damages allegedly caused by man - made global warming, arguing Big Oil covered up the knowledge their products would change the climate and should pay for current and future damages.

If we continue on our current emissions path, we're already headed for warming of up to 9 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100, which few climate scientists argue would be anything other than catastrophic, because of the drastic rise in sea levels, heat waves, species extinctions and shifts in rainfall that would result.

Two scientists who believe we are on the wrong track argue in the current issue of the journal Nature Climate Change that global warming is inevitable and it's time to switch our focus from trying to stop it to figuring out how we are going to deal with its consequences..»

The letter casts doubt on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) «hypothesis of dangerous human - caused global warming», and argues that current climate change is within natural variations.

Moore argued that the current argument that the burning of fossil fuels is driving global warming over the past century lacks scientific -LSB-...]

The paper, which argued that current warming was unexceptional, was disputed by scientists whose work was cited in the paper.

Nasheed has argued that if global society allows the world to warm by 2 degrees Celsius, the current pledge made by governments around the world, it will force the abandonment of the Maldives as the islands sink under rising sea levels.

One side argues that the current global warming is caused by human factors while the other side insists it is occurring because of natural forces.

The letter cast doubt on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) «hypothesis of dangerous human - caused global warming», and argued that current climate change is within natural variations.

... «I argue that the current agreement of model simulated and observed warming (given the other forcings) points towards a relatively small total aerosol effect.»

I know that some people will throw out accusations of Sigma Xi's bias here, and others will argue that global warming is responsible for the current climate that is starving the Kilimanjaro glacier.

But Berger and Loutre argue in their Perspective that with or without human perturbations, the current warm climate may last another 50,000 years.

«Berger and Loutre (2002) argue that «with or without human perturbations, the current warm climate may last another 50,000 years.

Assuming global warming is true, it could then be argued that curtailing manmade emmissions could help moderate the current rise in temperatures.

Some individuals, most notably Fred Singer, have argued that Dansgaard - Oeschger (D - O, a.k.a. Bond) events could be causing the current global warming.

Ironically, prior to publishing a book in 2007 which blamed the current warming on D - O cycles, Singer argued that the planet wasn't warming as recently as 2003.

It is hard to argue that there is much current warming.