Sentences with phrase «cause significant global warming»

Monckton's argument is very similar to the myth that CO2 can't cause significant global warming because it only comprises 0.04 % of the atmosphere.

35) It is a myth that computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming because computer models can be made to «verify» anything

Carbon dioxide does not cause significant global warming.»

«In a clear, understandable manner that a high school graduate with a few general science courses could understand, Climate Change Reconsidered effectively rebuts the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report that carbon dioxide due to human activity causes significant global warming.

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.

Soot causes significant global warming, it melts arctic sea and even thaws frozen tundra.

Not exact matches

More than 170 countries agreed early Saturday morning to limit emissions of key climate change - causing pollutants found in air conditioners, a significant step in the international effort to keep global warming from reaching catastrophic levels.

At the same time, a significant portion of the American public questions whether global warming will really cause any major harm; many still doubt that human - driven warming is happening at all.

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

Do you believe the human activity is significant factor that causes global warming?

Climate models forecast that global warming will cause climate patterns worldwide to experience significant changes.

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.

And even if there was significant uncertainty about the probability of global warming, that would be no cause for complacency, since it could mean that things were going to turn out worse than predicted.

That Newt Gingrich is pushing the right to take global warming seriously is, in fact, a significant and noteworthy change (I go to Johns Hopkins, a relatively conservative college campus where Gingrich came to speak last year, and I can say first - hand that his book is causing a ruckus).

The team set out to present its findings «in plain English» to congress and the media — findings which suggested a lack of significant or human - caused global warming while concluding that «if the earth were to warm slightly, and atmospheric CO2 were to increase, the effects would be mostly beneficial.»

In particular, the authors find fault with IPCC's conclusions relating to human activities being the primary cause of recent global warming, claiming, contrary to significant evidence that they tend to ignore, that the comparatively small influences of natural changes in solar radiation are dominating the influences of the much larger effects of changes in the atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations on the global energy balance.

In which case, a story reporting James Hansen's claim that global warming will «result in a rise in sea level measured in metres within a century» will be put in the AGW dominant / exclusive categories, while a story along the lines of «global warming unlikely to cause significant problems to New York City in the near future» will find itself in one of the sceptic categories — even though the latter is closer than the former to the IPCC position.

On the other hand; global warming has a number of significant effects on the environment; including the rising sea levels, melting ices, and lately being associated with possibility to cause stronger Hurricane.

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).

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.

The fact that so many studies on climate change don't bother to endorse the consensus position is significant because scientists have largely moved from what's causing global warming onto discussing details of the problem (eg - how fast, how soon, impacts, etc).

This is because no scientifically valid evidence has been found that increasing human - caused CO2 emissions would result in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) nor that it would even have a statistically significant effect on increasing global temperaGlobal Warming (CAGW) nor that it would even have a statistically significant effect on increasing global temperaglobal temperatures.

significant new peer - reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human - caused 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.

KR asks the correct question finally, as to what we would do if human CO2 production was the cause of significant global warming with significant adverse effects.

Any warming observed prior to WWII is indicative of «global warming» (GW), but (since there were no significant human GHG emissions yet) is counterindicative of anthropogenic greenhouse warming (AGW), since something other than human GHGs caused it, raising the question: if non GH warming caused this warming, could it not also have caused the most recent extended warming period?

Previous research has shown that global warming will cause changes in ocean temperatures, sea ice extent, salinity, and oxygen levels, among other impacts, that are likely to lead to significant shifts in the distribution range and productivity of marine species, the study notes.

If warming over the past 15 years has been so marginal that even people who believe firmly in human - caused global warming admit it isn't significant, what's all the fuss about?

There seems to be significant confusion on the issue of human caused global warming because some say that the warming has stopped, or paused.

Dr. Hansen stressed that he is still convinced that global warming is under way, that people are a significant cause, and that work should be done to cut the rate of change — perhaps not quite as much work as researchers thought.

Even if most areas of the U.S. remain «insurable,» many risk management specialists have predicted that global warming will cause significant increase in all types of insurance costs — disaster, auto, health.

Anomalies in the volcanic - aerosol induced global radiative heating distribution can force significant changes in atmospheric circulation, for example, perturbing the equator - to - pole heating gradient (Stenchikov et al., 2002; Ramaswamy et al., 2006a; see Section 9.2) and forcing a positive phase of the Arctic Oscillation that in turn causes a counterintuitive boreal winter warming at middle and high latitudes over Eurasia and North America (Perlwitz and Graf, 2001; Stenchikov et al., 2002, 2004, 2006; Shindell et al., 2003b, 2004; Perlwitz and Harnik, 2003; Rind et al., 2005; Miller et al., 2006).

As its impact on global warming is a significant one, natural causes are given a contribution rate of 50 %.

«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.

Most of us don't think of food waste as a cause of global warming, but it's a significant one that also contributes to world hunger.

While I agree that anthropogenic actions are the major cause of global warming, I disagree that CO2 is a significant factor.

«All 18 periods of significant climate changes found during the last 7,500 years were entirely caused by corresponding quasi-bicentennial variations of [total solar irradiance] together with the subsequent feedback effects, which always control and totally determine cyclic mechanism of climatic changes from global warming to Little Ice Age.»

If global warming continues unchecked, it will cause significant climate change, a rise in sea levels, increasing ocean acidification, extreme weather events and other severe natural and societal impacts, according to NASA, the EPA and other scientific and governmental bodies.

In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is «settled,» significant new peer - reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human - caused global warming.

Or about whether a certain greenhouse gas is a significant cause of global warming.

The ABC report never considered whether the drastic GNP losses associated with steps that would be predicted to make a significant difference would cause more death, poverty, and destruction than the likeliest global warming scenarios.

Surprisingly, the statement by the sixteen scientists that «CO2 is not a pollutant» is defended by reference to a common dictionary rather than to a scientific source.d But in the end they agree that the real issue is whether this «component» will «cause significant and destructive global warming.»

The international scientific community's new assessment of the estimated sea level rise caused by global warming is a significant development, but experts say the projections for higher sea levels in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate (IPCC) assessment report (AR5) are still on the low side.

This difference is significant because research shows that people are more likely to support policy actions to reduce carbon dioxide emissions if they are aware of the overwhelming agreement among experts that we are causing global warming.

The result is that we have a program that is reducing sulphur emissions from power plants which do NOT cause a significant problem with acid rain, and by doing so, it is EXACERBATING what may be a REAL problem with global warming.

We consider such references to be the real «rhetorical devices» because they obscure the key scientific issue: whether this critical component of the earth's biosphere will cause significant and destructive global warming.

RE: The Over-whelming scientific Consensus on man - made CO2 caused Global - warming - 97 % of the climate scientists surveyed believe «global aver temps have increased» during the past century [So do I]-- Your quotes: How «significant it is that 84 % of climate scientists have reached a «consensus» that «human - induced warming is occurring» «--RCB- 84 % «personally believe» [implies they may NOT have actually studied this topic — IE: may NOT be experts on this particular matter] human - induced warming is occurring -LCB--... — «In 1991 only 41 % of climate scientists were very confident that industrial emissions of greenhouse gases were responsible for climate disruGlobal - warming - 97 % of the climate scientists surveyed believe «global aver temps have increased» during the past century [So do I]-- Your quotes: How «significant it is that 84 % of climate scientists have reached a «consensus» that «human - induced warming is occurring» «--RCB- 84 % «personally believe» [implies they may NOT have actually studied this topic — IE: may NOT be experts on this particular matter] human - induced warming is occurring -LCB--... — «In 1991 only 41 % of climate scientists were very confident that industrial emissions of greenhouse gases were responsible for climate disruglobal aver temps have increased» during the past century [So do I]-- Your quotes: How «significant it is that 84 % of climate scientists have reached a «consensus» that «human - induced warming is occurring» «--RCB- 84 % «personally believe» [implies they may NOT have actually studied this topic — IE: may NOT be experts on this particular matter] human - induced warming is occurring -LCB--... — «In 1991 only 41 % of climate scientists were very confident that industrial emissions of greenhouse gases were responsible for climate disruption.

While no individual hurricane can be attributed to global warming, the report says, rising global temperatures in the coming decades are likely to cause significant increases in severe weather events, such as hurricanes, floods, hailstorms, wildfires, droughts and heat waves.

I wonder how hard it was for him to acknowledge that other more significant processes than global warming could be causing increased hurricane activity.

Despite his public rejection of global warming, its causes and impacts, Politico reports that Trump filed an application in May of this year to construct a sea wall to protect a golf course property in Ireland from «global warming and its effects» and these same risings seas pose a significant threat to his considerable real estate holdings in New York City and Florida.