Sentences with phrase «claim that warming causes»

As far as I know not even Jim Hansen would claim that warming causes cooler temperatures.

Apparently giving up on the idea that pre-1950 wasn't caused by CO2, but instead are claiming the warming caused by CO2 has occurred sometime after this point.

Not exact matches

The claim that increasing CO2 is causing catastrophic global warming is being falsified by these facts:

Taylor also claims that human - induced warming has caused rising sea levels and desertification, hence «climate change refugees» which is an issue of human rights.

anyone who claims that humans cause global warming has made an extraordinary claim.

During the Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA), Europe basked in balmy weather, and some claim that whatever natural mechanism caused it is warming the world today.

Munichre claims that this year's floods, Europe's worst ever, might have been caused by global warming.

The controversy around this issue has led scientists across Europe to dig deeper into the claim that solar activity could be a major cause of global warming.

During the Presidential primary campaign, claims were made that the Earth is not warming, or that warming is due to purely natural causes outside of human control.

Claims that the Sun has caused as much as 70 % of the recent global warming... presents fundamental puzzles.

The report claims 95 % confidence that «human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century» How is this value calculated, especially since there is a great discrepancy between the models and observed temperatures, that this tome completely fails to account for.

Cuccinelli cites the Kremlin organ RIA Novosti to «prove» that western climate scientists are LYING about global warming, but during the 2010 forest fires, Andrei Areshev, a lunatic attached to a Russian Foreign Ministry drunk tank, even claimed right in this same RIA Novosti that those sneaky U.S. climate scientists were CAUSING global warming by beaming secret climate weapons at Russia!

published report, Hayward stated that holding the US back from fulfilling it's petroleum - based product requirements is «a reluctance to develop the nation's massive natural resources under the mistaken belief in the unproven science that claims carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from burning of fossil fuels is the major cause of recent and future warming of the Earth.

# 102 Kevin: SA claims that «observed effects of the warming that has already occurred as a result of the greenhouse gases we have already emitted... are already causing massive and costly harm.»

A revealing look at RC's «real science:» When SecularAnimist posts a dubious claim (# 87) about the cause and effects of global warming, it remains here.

There is very little science behind the claim that a doubling of CO2 will cause one degree C. of warming — which even if true, adds up to a mere one degree C. of global warming in about 200 years, assuming CO2 levels increase 2 ppm per year, and the hypothesis is correct.

What deniers want to do is skip all that, misrepresent the models by claiming they predict steady warming (conflate multi-model ensemble means with individual model runs), and conclude the physics is wrong and CO2 causes less warming.

We will at some point post something on the climate / hurricane arguments, but a basic fact is that there is a huge difference between claiming that global warming trends will tend, statistically, to lead to more / larger hurricanes, and attributing specific events in specific years to such causes.

Since a commenter mentioned the medieval vineyards in England, I've been engaged on a quixotic quest to discover the truth about the oft - cited, but seldom thought through, claim that the existence of said vineyards a thousand years ago implies that a «Medieval Warm Period «was obviously warmer than the current climate (and by implication that human - caused global warming is not occuring).

The point I am trying to make is «when it is claimed that DO events represent a much larger and more rapid climate change than anthropogenic global warming,» perhaps DO events do cause rapid regional climate change larger and more rapid than anthropogenic global warming generally.

He then goes on to say that «McKitrick and McIntyre's article «undermines claims about what caused late 20th century warming» (essentially ignoring most of the points made above by Rahmstorf).

Via Earth2Tech More Transportation Articles Rasmussen Survey: Nobody Listens to Scientists, Only 34 % of US Voters Believe Global Warming is Caused by Human Activity Toyota to Cut New Prius Hybrid Base Price to $ 21,000, Offer 5 Trim Levels EU Closes Car Air Conditioner Regulatory Loophole, Earth's Climate Wins Toyota Claims Over 20,000 Pre-Orders for 2010 Toyota Prius Hybrid Breathtaking!

However, the claims by certain scientists that the extremely active hurricane seasons of 2004/2005 were due to a cyclic phenomenon in the Atlantic ocean known as the «Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation», in which an accelerating Gulf Stream causes warm water to move northward, were quite astounding and also unsupported.

-- it's interesting for the pictures showing how different roof and wall paints / colors collect heat, though it's a bit odd in claiming this is the cause of global warming.

Conversely I note that if CO2 directly causes warming as you appear to be claiming, the fact that ice cores show that temperatures increased about 800 years before a CO2 increase (and a latter decline in temperatures before CO2 levels declined) casts doubt upon CO2 as a driver.

Re # 158 (Sashka): I read the document you linked to at http://www.aei-brookings.org/admin/authorpdfs/page.php?id=236 and found out that the $ 5T number you claimed as the cost of Kyoto compliance is not that at all, but is actually Bjorn Lomborg's quote of Nordhaus» figure for how much it would cost to pay for global warming - caused damage in the developing world over the course of the current century if nothing were done to impede the warming.

Gavin, I agree completely with the standard picture that you describe, but I don't agree with the claim that ``... as surface temperatures and the ocean heat content are rising together, it almost certainly rules out intrinsic variability of the climate system as a major cause for the recent warming».

A recent slowdown in global warming has led some skeptics to renew their claims that industrial carbon emissions are not causing a century - long rise in Earth's surface temperatures.

Depending on from where you measure, the warming in the first half of the 20th century is about one third to one half of the total, so that suggests 40 to 50 % of the warming in the first half of the century was caused by solar (which is a lot less than Scafetta is claiming).

Both sources are confusing you, RC perhaps because your questions were both too simple and potentially too embarrassing, this article because you make the leap of logic that Patrick alluded to in # 2, that warming climate caused the increase in rainfalll, not warmer weather as is the claim of the researchers.

Once again we see the «jump - on - the - bandwagon» «scientists» claiming that global warming is man - caused and can be mitigated.

109 SecularAnimist: I have repeatedly asked you for the basis of your claim that observed effects of anthropogenic warming are already causing massive and costly harm.

The climate - change debunkers include Richard S. Lindzen, 67, a meteorologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who claims that human - caused warming is inconsequential, and Michael Crichton, 64, the novelist and moviemaker.

«Deniers will claim in the same breath (or within a few minutes) that (a) temperatures can not be measured reliably, (b) there is definitely no warming, (c) the warming isn't caused by humans, and (d) we are doing ourselves a favor by warming the planet.

Plus you totally failed to cite a single peer reviewed that empirically shows that anthropogenic CO2 was the primary cause of the late 20th century warming like your climate cult claims.

No wonder he claims that humans are causing global warming.

The 2007 IPCC Report claimed with over 90 % certainty that human produced CO2 is almost the sole cause of global warming.

However, claiming that CO2 has only caused 35 % of global warming is a gross misinterpretation and misunderstanding of the paper.

Unlike these climate scientists, who have solid evidence that humans are not causing the majority of warming and / or the warming is not dangerous, Galileo and his fellow helieocentrists did not have a shred of evidence to back up the claim.

It has been claimed that late 20th Century was unprecedented in temperature and that nothing could have caused the warming except CO2.

This particular category doesn't state how much global warming humans are causing, and hence climate contrarians claim that because they admit humans are causing some global warming, they should be included in the 97 percent.

Yet another clown dancing dodge by Robert, who can't cite a single peer reviewed paper that empirically shows anthropogenic CO2 has been the primary cause of the late 20th century warming as your climate cult claims.

How else can the developing countries claim that the developed countries must compensate them for the damages caused by all of the warming?

This is the CRUX of the claim that Harries01 uses empirical data to PROVE that CO2 is the primary cause of warming.

It claimed that the process resulting in the IPCC report was flawed, and that if Global Warming really was human - caused that energy would be better spent trying to mitigate the damage it would do, as opposed to trying to stop it.

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.

«That you can't support your claims with any substantive body of research...» The empirical data shows that natural climate variability is still the primary cause of the climate warming of the past century.

They claim that economic activity is the key to human production of CO2, which causes warming.

But you can NOT support your claims with empirical data, because just as I pointed out, and you have failed to refute, there isn't a single peer reviewed paper that empirically shows that anthropogenic CO2 was the primary cause of the late 20th century warming like your climate alarmist religion claims.

Nobody is making a claim that ENSO causes global warming.