Sentences with phrase «by significant global warming»

Not exact matches

The Province of B.C. is willing to make significant environmental sacrifices for projects that will bring economic benefits to the Province of B.C.. On the other hand, they will block a project needed by a land - locked sister province, a project that would benefit all of Canada, claiming that they are doing so because they must protect the environment, protect the land from damage and reduce global warming.

Janeway said without significant intervention to curb global warming, climate scientists report that by 2100, the Adirondack Park's climate will resemble present - day Richmond, Virginia.

Fact # 1: Carbon Dioxide is a Heat - Trapping Gas Fact # 2: We Are Adding More Carbon Dioxide to the Atmosphere All the Time Fact # 3: Temperatures are Rising Fact # 4: Sea Level is Rising Fact # 5: Climate Change Can be Natural, but What's Happening Now Can't be Explained by Natural Forces Fact # 6: The Terms «Global Warming» and «Climate Change» Are Almost Interchangeable Fact # 7: We Can Already See The Effects of Climate Change Fact # 8: Large Regions of The World Are Seeing a Significant Increase In Extreme Weather Events, Including Torrential Rainstorms, Heat Waves And Droughts Fact # 9: Frost and Snowstorms Will Still Happen in a Warmer World Fact # 10: Global Warming is a Long - Term Trend; It Doesn't Mean Next Year Will Always Be Warmer Than This Year

Human aerosol emissions are also offsetting a significant amount of the warming by causing global dimming.

Without significant mitigation, the report says global mean warming could reach as high as 7 degrees Celsius by 2100.

There are significant questions about the robustness of the numbers at the heart of the new report estimating more than 300,000 deaths are already being caused each year by global warming, with nearly twice that number possible by 2030.

I'm simply questioning the validity of the hypothesis offered by so many climate scientists that CO2 emissions from fossil fuels are a significant factor in global warming, to the extent that they must be drastically reduced.

The paper was accompanied by a press release entitled «Global Warming not a Man - made Phenomenon», in which Shaviv was quoted as stating, «The operative significance of our research is that a significant reduction of the release of greenhouse gases will not significantly lower the global temperature, since only about a third of the warming over the past century should be attributed to man&rGlobal Warming not a Man - made Phenomenon», in which Shaviv was quoted as stating, «The operative significance of our research is that a significant reduction of the release of greenhouse gases will not significantly lower the global temperature, since only about a third of the warming over the past century should be attributed to man&Warming not a Man - made Phenomenon», in which Shaviv was quoted as stating, «The operative significance of our research is that a significant reduction of the release of greenhouse gases will not significantly lower the global temperature, since only about a third of the warming over the past century should be attributed to man&rglobal temperature, since only about a third of the warming over the past century should be attributed to man&warming over the past century should be attributed to man».

Victor (243): I'm simply questioning the validity of the hypothesis offered by so many climate scientists that CO2 emissions from fossil fuels are a significant factor in global warming, to the extent that they must be drastically reduced.

While this may not seem a significant message outside of Italy, by relating dress style to global warming the Italian government may have found a way to get the attention of a blasà © public.

Last year was the second or third warmest year for annual global temperatures since 1850, after 2015 and 2016, both of which were dominated by a significant El Niño.

A one - degree global change is significant because it takes a vast amount of heat to warm all the oceans, atmosphere, and land by that much.

The relationship is not perfect but it represents a significant improvement over the incredibly lame human - CO2 and global warming / climate change relationship claimed by the IPCC's anti-CO2 Climategate scientists and alarmists.

The indifference reflects widespread public doubt that human activities play a significant role in global warming, a tone set by President Vladimir Putin, who has offered only vague and modest pledges of emissions cuts ahead of December's U.N. climate summit in Paris.

There's no significant change in the understanding of climate change or global warming which continue to be valid expressions (while CAGW is just a concept invented by skeptics to use as they like and in a way that does not reflect main stream views).

In 2007, a British High Court judge ruled that Al Gore's global warming film contained nine significant errors and should no longer be screened in schools unless accompanied by guidance notes to balance Gore's «one - sided» views.

Again, no significant trend of the global averaged Gaa [atmospheric greenhouse effect] is found from 2003 to 2014 (Fig. 2) because the enhanced warming effect over the western tropical Pacific is largely counteracted by the weakened warming influence on the central tropical Pacific.

There is significant evidence that global warming is NOT primarily driven by atmospheric CO2.

Being off by 20 % means that global warming will still be a significant problem and the sensitivity assumptions of 3.0 C per doubling of CO2 is close to being correct.

This has been discussed on this very site, with a humorous example of its flaws being that applying it to a global data set (GHCN) instead of just one for the United States reverses the results, finding that adjustments reduce global warming by a significant amount.

The revision, slipped quietly into the public domain on Christmas Eve by Britain's Met Office, has fuelled a significant and growing debate about what exactly happened to global warming.

If global warming is real and significant and caused by humans burning oil, it seems to have a natural limit to the amount of damage that can be done (i.e., the amount of readily obtainable oil).

The hypothesis then is that multidecadal climate has only two significant components: the sawtooth, whatever its origins, and warming that can be accounted for 99.98 % by the AHH law as measured by the R2 of its fit to observed global warming (and could be brought even closer to 1 with a good story for MRES).

We don't get any closer to science by denying the significant possibility that we are causing significantly adverse changes in climate than we do by the ridiculous assertion that we understand the chaotic complexity of climate well enough to say with certainty how many parts per millions of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will lead to how many degrees of global warming.

Roddy, you see the slippery slope Taylor puts himself on by admitting that the human influence on global warming is already significant.

The Obama administration rolled out a plan Monday to cut carbon dioxide emissions from power plants by 30 percent by 2030, setting in motion one of the most significant actions on global warming in U.S. history.

If current trends in global warming continue unmitigated, some of the world's most well - known and historically significant cultural landmarks — including the Statue of Liberty in New York City, the Tower of London in the United Kingdom, and the archaeological sites of Pompeii in Italy — could be destroyed by rising global sea levels over the next 2,000 years, according to new research.

As a result of the significant scientific effort to date, aided by public concern, models simulating climate change have gained considerable skill... There will be many scientific and technical challenges along the way, but the hope is that simulations of the global environment will be able to maximise the number of people around the world who can adapt to, and be protected from the worst impacts of, global warming.

... incomplete and misleading because it 1) omits any mention of several of the most important aspects of the potential relationships between hurricanes and global warming, including rainfall, sea level, and storm surge; 2) leaves the impression that there is no significant connection between recent climate change caused by human activities and hurricane characteristics and impacts; and 3) does not take full account of the significance of recently identified trends and variations in tropical storms in causing impacts as compared to increasing societal vulnerability.

All of these enviro - whackpot prognosticators of a global warming Apocalypse lack the intellectual curiosity to even wonder how there can be so much evidence - backed, statistically significant research showing that all past and historical global warming is completely explained by ENSO effects and other natural activity.

Yet the linear trend on the Hadley / CRU monthly global temperature anomalies for the 18 years 1995 - 2012 shows no statistically - significant warming, even though the partial pressure of CO2 rose by about a tenth in that time.

In this context, for the Administration to have released a U.S. Climate Action Report with a chapter on climate change impacts that identified a range of likely adverse consequences, based on scientific reports including the National Assessment, could rightly be seen as an anomaly and appeared to be seen as a significant political error by Administration allies dedicated to denying the reality of human - induced global warming as a significant problem.

Which forms the basis for the IPCC claim of high climate sensitivity (mean value of 3.2 C), resulting in significant global warming (up to 6.4 C warming by 2100), «extreme high sea levels», increased «heat waves», increased «heavy rains» and floods, increased «droughts», increased «intense tropical cyclones» — which, in turn, lead to crop failures, disappearance of glaciers now supplying drinking water to millions, increased vector borne diseases, etc. (for short, potentially catastrophic AGW — or «CAGW»).

However, despite this, the team reckon to have perhaps isolated a «global warming» signal in the accelerated run off of the Greenland Ice Mass — but only just, because the runoff at the edges is balanced by increasing central mass — again, they focus upon recent trends — a net loss of about 22 cubic kilometres in total ice mass per year which they regard as statistically not significant — to find the «signal», and a contradiction to their ealier context of air temperature cycles.

As a result, significant, non-CO2 impacts on global warming are either ignored or trivialized by the IPCC.

Although Lawson and his Global Warming Policy Foundation have been discredited and attacked by numerous scientists and senior politicians, his thinktank continues to receive significant coverage, wrongfully distorting the public and policy debate over climate change.

As I predicted two weeks ago, there has been a media and blog frenzy over the statement by climatologist Phil Jones that global warming since 1995 has not been «statistically significant».

There are many examples where the transition from paid employment in climate research to retirement has been accompanied by a significant change of heart away from acknowledging the seriousness of global warming.

After no significant global warming for some 20 + years, the «elites» are finally being embarrassed by the empirical evidence, which doesn't comport with their favorite unicorn science - fantasy.

The fact that organic agriculture systems also absorb and retain significant amounts of carbon in the soil has implications for global warming, Pimentel said, pointing out that soil carbon in the organic systems increased by 15 to 28 percent, the equivalent of taking about 3,500 pounds of carbon dioxide per hectare out of the air.

This result is broadly consistent with the survey performed by Doran & Zimmerman in 2009, which found that 97 % of climate scientists agreed that humans are causing significant global warming.

Jones answered honestly, if a bit clumsily, that the data period since 1995 is marginally too short to derive a statistically significant trend, a response which was headlined by the Daily Mail as «Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995?»

The new research, compiled by the international agency Climate Analytics, suggests that limiting global warming to 1.5 ℃ rather than letting it reach 2 ℃ could make a significant difference to the severity of extreme weather events in Australia.

As head of the nation's largest city, de Blasio is throwing significant weight behind a movement by local governments to directly target fossil fuel companies for the role their products play in fueling global warming.

For several months, the «Monthly CO2 Reports,» compiled by me at www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org, have been pointing out that there has been no statistically significant «global warming» for 15 years.

Shaviv and Veizer's paper was accompanied by a press release titled «Global warming not a man - made phenomenon», in which Shaviv is quoted stating: «The operative significance of our research is that a significant reduction of the release of greenhouse gases will not significantly lower the global temperature, since only about a third of the warming over the past century should be attributed to man&rGlobal warming not a man - made phenomenon», in which Shaviv is quoted stating: «The operative significance of our research is that a significant reduction of the release of greenhouse gases will not significantly lower the global temperature, since only about a third of the warming over the past century should be attributed to man&rglobal temperature, since only about a third of the warming over the past century should be attributed to man».

There have been three assessments of global warming by the international panel since 1990, and each has drawn a more conclusive picture than the last of the link between human activities and the prospects for significant harm to agriculture, ecosystems and coastlines.

«Climate science» as it is used by warmists implies adherence to a set of beliefs: (1) Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations will warm the Earth's surface and atmosphere; (2) Human production of CO2 is producing significant increases in CO2 concentration; (3) The rate of rise of temperature in the 20th and 21st centuries is unprecedented compared to the rates of change of temperature in the previous two millennia and this can only be due to rising greenhouse gas concentrations; (4) The climate of the 19th century was ideal and may be taken as a standard to compare against any current climate; (5) global climate models, while still not perfect, are good enough to indicate that continued use of fossil fuels at projected rates in the 21st century will cause the CO2 concentration to rise to a high level by 2100 (possibly 700 to 900 ppm); (6) The global average temperature under this condition will rise more than 3 °C from the late 19th century ideal; (7) The negative impact on humanity of such a rise will be enormous; (8) The only alternative to such a disaster is to immediately and sharply reduce CO2 emissions (reducing emissions in 2050 by 80 % compared to today's rate) and continue further reductions after 2050; (9) Even with such draconian CO2 reductions, the CO2 concentration is likely to reach at least 450 to 500 ppm by 2100 resulting in significant damage to humanity; (10) Such reductions in CO2 emissions are technically feasible and economically affordable while providing adequate energy to a growing world population that is increasingly industrializing.

Reducing HFCs: The U.S. is also taking action to phase down the use of high - global - warming - potential HFCs by finding environmentally - friendly alternatives to traditional ozone - depleting substances through the Significant New Alternatives Policy, or SNAP, program.

The significant changes in the Arctic are key pieces of evidence for global warming, but the observations from Arctic are complemented by evidence from around the world.