Sentences with phrase «caused previous warm»

The null hypothesis is that whatever caused previous warm spells is operating now.

This modern warm period is not yet as warm as the Roman Warm Period and not yet as warm as the Medieval Warm Period, but we are not as warm because man - made CO2 is causing the modern warm period and natural variability caused the previous warm periods.

I realize that Gavin is writing for fellow climate researchers rather than such as I who only have a medical doctorate, but surely there is some language, Gavin, that could more clearly, in plain English, describe what his objections, in the main, are, to those who raise some doubts as to the long - term climate record and what may have caused previous warmings.

How can you have a «quantifiable» explanation for warming when you lack any understanding of what caused previous warming?

Right, lolwot, increasing CO2 and steady or dropping temperatures increase the certainty that man caused previous warming.

The causes are not well understood, but some scientists suspect that release of methane hydrates from the ocean could have played a major role in causing these previous warming episodes.

Until you can prove that whatever caused the previous warmings is not happening now, there is no reason to take any of your claims seriously.

Not exact matches

The additional warming caused a near - doubling of melt rates in the twenty - year period from 1995 to 2015 compared to previous times when the same blocking and ocean conditions were present.

Previous studies established that especially in cooler mountain regions, carbon bound in soil organic matter reacts very sensitively to warmer weather caused by climate warming, and is increasingly released by microorganisms.

With previous studies showing that higher temperatures, caused by global warming, have led to more unstable mountain rocks — the scientists, who took part in the new study, believe that using the two monitoring techniques together could prove vital for thousands of skiers and mountain climbers who undertake trips every year.

«Previous studies have shown a correlation between temperature and insect damage diversity in the fossil record, possibly caused by evolutionary radiations or range shifts in response to a warmer climate,» said Donovan.

The findings also suggest that previous techniques using satellites to measure drought stress in rainforests may be missing dire impacts of a warming global climate, which many scientists believe will cause more droughts in those critical habitats.

Previous research suggested that rapidly warming air and sea temperatures — which melt sea ice — might cause their numbers to plummet by as much as 19 % by 2100.

-- http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/12/124002/article «It is known that carbon dioxide emissions cause the Earth to warm, but no previous study has focused on examining how long it takes to reach maximum warming following a particular CO2 emission.

Other common causes of heat stroke include: a previous episode of heat stroke, leaving a dog in a parked car, excessive exercise in hot, humid weather (this may be exercise that your dog can usually handle but not in warmer weather), lack of appropriate shelter outdoors, thicker - coated dogs in warm weather and underlying disease such as upper airway, heart of lung disease.

The 97 % consensus on human - caused global warming is a robust result using two independent methods (volunteer abstract ratings and scientist self - ratings) and consistent with similar previous surveys.

What I have always read is that previous warmings were originally caused by other factors but were amplified over time by CO2 as a feedback mechanism.

Joey Comiso, senior research scientist at Nasa's Goddard Space Flight Center, said this year's ice retreat was caused by previous warm years reducing the amount of perennial ice — which is more resistant to melting.

-LRB-- NAO) This sea ice then melts in the Sub Polar Atlantic, releasing fresh water into the sub - polar Atlantic waters, which in turn impedes the formation of NADW, which slows down the thermohaline circulation causing warm air not to be brought up from the lower latitudes as far north as previous while in lessening amounts.

The plan they came up with was to announce that (computer model - generated) predictions of sea ice decline due to (computer model - generated) predictions of human - caused global warming are so catastrophic that polar bears should be returned to their previous «vulnerable» classification, despite the fact that by all other criteria they are flourishing.

He just hasn't openly gotten his mind around the possibility that the same natural variability may have been a major cause of the previous warming, which was blamed on GHGs.

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.

* As there is more snow / ice to melt than in previous cold periods presumably even a rise to the levels of previous warm periods will cause more melting than in previous eras.

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 shifts in the range and productivity of marine species.

Or rather, the message should be in three parts: basic physics leads us to have a strong expectation that the carbon dioxide we've pumped into the atmosphere should cause global warming; the measurements that have been made bear this out; the scientific consensus about the previous two statements is overwhelming.

As readers may recall from previous posts, the 6 O'clock news on BBC Radio 4 on 18 January started with the false claim that «The world's leading climate agencies have said for the first time that global warming caused by humans now dwarfs natural temperature changes.»

Even if it has been warmer at times during the current and previous interglacials, showing that the forcing is unprecedented, rising and currently overwhelming natural variation can be seen of itself to be sufficient cause for alarm (that it be overwhelming is not quite what the IPCC report states but the more than half post 1950 claim is similar).

Our results are also consistent with several previous surveys finding a 97 % consensus amongst climate experts on the human cause of global warming.

Yet, it is still a widely accepted myth for periods since 1980 - that human CO2 has caused unprecedented temperature increases, far outpacing any previous 20th century warming increases.

Our results are also consistent with previous research finding a 97 % consensus amongst climate experts on the human cause of global warming.

Previous studies have considered mechanisms for the basin - scale ocean warming, but not the causes of the observed IPWP expansion, where expansion in the Indian Ocean has far exceeded that in the Pacific Ocean.

«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.

Peter Lang: Do we know what caused the similar previous warmings, such as the Roman and Medieval warm periods?

Subject to the above caveats and those described in the text, the CRF / climate link therefore implies that the increased solar luminosity and reduced CRF over the previous century should have contributed a warming of 0.47 ± 0.19 ° K, while the rest should be mainly attributed to anthropogenic causes.

Since you mention the subject, I was wondering if Dr. Curry could take a look at the «the authoritative Met Office «HADCRUT4» surface record» mentioned in David Rose's latest Mail article and explain how it justifies her «The record warm years of 2015 and 2016 were primarily caused by the super El Nino» remark quoted in his previous one:

I wrote to the BBC at the time pointing out that the audience was likely to have been severely misled by this question, that the warming over the previous 16 years reached a conventional threshold of statistical significance (p < 0.05), and that over a short timescale natural causes of variability (ENSO, volcanoes, the solar cycle) tend to predominate, so the short answer is «15 years is too small a sample to demonstrate statistical significance.»

The IPCC * itself * acknowledges that there has been no such warming now for the last 16 - 17 years; that no dramatic imminent change is seen to that for the next couple of years at least; that the previous spell of 15 years or so was precisely the duration of warming that underlay so much of the evidence cited for its alarms of the long and terrible global trend if forecast; that not a single model the IPCC had or has seems to have come even close to predicting what we've now seen; that the IPCC can only suggest possible explanations for all this so logically meaning it can have no reason to believe that whatever is causing it isn't going to continue forever; that more and more studies are coming in attributing global temperatures not to CO2 but instead other things such as solar fluctuations; that a number of predictions are now coming in that in fact say we are now in for a lengthy period of * cooling.

While weather patterns can cause average temperatures to fluctuate from year to year, NASA expects that each decade will be warmer than the previous one, thanks to uncurbed greenhouse gas increases.

Consistent with these previous studies, Meehl et al. (2013)(PDF available here) estimate a Maunder Minimum would cause about 0.26 °C cooling, but as soon as solar activity began to rise again, that cooling would be offset by solar warming.

Expert consensus results on the question of human - caused global warming among the previous studies published by the co-authors of Cook et al. (2016).

OK, given uncertainty about the causes of the LIA I can accept, given the causes have disappeared, the planet returns to previous equilibrium (btw, can you ask Bob Tisdale why it gets warmer after each El Nino and temperature doesn't get back to a equilibrium?).