Sentences with phrase «explain current warming»

Without increased greenhouse gases, there is no other quantifiable way to reasonably explain current warming.

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.

There are variations in the amount of energy we receive from the sun due to factors like orbital patterns and sunspots, but none which can explain the current warming, according to the IPCC.

Skeptics say that submarine volcanism explains the current warming of the oceans.

Not exact matches

«Using a numerical climate model we found that sulfate reductions over Europe between 1980 and 2005 could explain a significant fraction of the amplified warming in the Arctic region during that period due to changes in long - range transport, atmospheric winds and ocean currents.

So the report notes that the current «pause» in new global average temperature records since 1998 — a year that saw the second strongest El Nino on record and shattered warming records — does not reflect the long - term trend and may be explained by the oceans absorbing the majority of the extra heat trapped by greenhouse gases as well as the cooling contributions of volcanic eruptions.

The unusual changes in currents may help explain how the larvae of the heat - loving creatures living around hydrothermal vents are dispersed through long stretches of near - freezing waters to reach other warm havens, says Adams.

As co-author Professor Peter Cox of the University of Exeter explained: «We found that the current pattern of permafrost reveals the sensitivity of permafrost to global warming.»

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.

As astronomical cycles they are predictable into the future and will cause another ice age probably in around 50,000 years (that depends on where the threshold for glaciation is, and what future CO2 levels will be at that time), but there is no way the Milankovich cycles could explain the current global warming.

On the possibility of a changing cloud cover «forcing» global warming in recent times (assuming we can just ignore the CO2 physics and current literature on feedbacks, since I don't see a contradiction between an internal radiative forcing and positive feedbacks), one would have to explain a few things, like why the diurnal temperature gradient would decrease with a planet being warmed by decreased albedo... why the stratosphere should cool... why winters should warm faster than summers... essentially the same questions that come with the cosmic ray hypothesis.

Gavin disputes that the main driver of the sea ice retreat is the albedo flip, but we are seeing not only polar amplification of global warming but positive feedback, which would not be explained simply by radiative forces and ocean currents.

Also, if we say we know what's causing current warming there's a lot of work to be done explaining model failure on predictions.

Another example would be to explain why Arrhenius, who as a Swede was reportedly in favor of a little warming, obtained ECS results from his simple, laboriously hand - calculated model of CO2 - driven global warming that are only a factor of two higher than estimates by the current ensemble of coupled GCMs.

«Laws of Nature», Actually, one might be able to come up with all sorts of unlikely, mysterious scenarios that account for the current level of warming (including a heat gun weilded by invisible Martians, CIA / UN / Mossad experiments...) if the temperature were the only data set that had to be explained.

T 54: if we say we know what's causing current warming there's a lot of work to be done explaining model failure on predictions.

We can write down a simple recipe for the GHE, but it is indeed challenging to reconcile a presence of a negative feedback with our observations, or explain the current observed global warming in any other terms.

WA Regional Climate Services Manager Mr Glenn Cook explained that the high rainfall was due to an active monsoon season in the north of the state, as a result of the current La Nina and aided by warmer than normal waters off the WA north coast.

The mid-century suspension of warming could then be explained as a temporary resumption of the previous flow pattern of currents.

Finally the mechanism for c02 being a warming cause has never been explained, the current theory reverses from c02 being a result of heat to being a cause which seems illogical.

I disagree that the stadium wave can explain the current cessation of warming, aka «hiatus» in IPCC jargon.

Jim D You still have not explained why you are working so hard to avoid warming and thus to encourage a return from the current warm interglacial period back down to the full glaciation temperatures.

I am not at all surprised to find climate skeptics preferring Mike's description over mine, given that mine tries to fit the current understanding of the impact of rising CO2 on temperature to the data while Mike's uses gross overfitting to show that one does not need CO2 to explain recent global warming.

The Norwegians also noted very little ice around Svalbard in the early 1920's so who is to say that this recent decline isn't just part of a longer 80 - 100 year cycle, probably led by changes to ocean currents (which would explain why the Arctic has warmed, unlike the Antarctic continent).

The third sentence, «Stadium Waves» Could Explain Lull In Global Warming» is also a postulate based on their belief that the current downward trend in the Stadium waves COULD cause A LULL in global wWarming» is also a postulate based on their belief that the current downward trend in the Stadium waves COULD cause A LULL in global warmingwarming.

«As a Lukewarmer I cheerfully accept the science explaining how our high emissions of CO2 have contributed to the current warming period.»

'' As a Lukewarmer I (TF) cheerfully accept the science explaining how our high emissions of CO2 have contributed to the current warming period.»

He says: «As a Lukewarmer I cheerfully accept the science explaining how our high emissions of CO2 have contributed to the current warming period» What warming period?

This ability to put people at ease helps explain why, after nearly two decades of effort, Lindzen has achieved exalted status among the current crop of global - warming doubters.

He evidently is not too literate in global warming theory either because he tries to explain the current non-warming period by saying that the ``... current stand - still of the 5 - year running mean global temperature may be largely a consequence of the fact that the first half of the past 10 years had predominantly El Nino conditions, and the second half had predominantly La Nina conditions.»

But his emphasis on the ENSO changes to explain the current «standstill» begs the question: «if a La Niña phase is now causing a lack of 21stC warming, could it have been the unusual frequency and magnitude of 20thC El Niños (rather than GHGs) that were the principal cause for the late 20thC warming?»

They explain how, overall, Antarctic sea ice cover (frozen sea surface), for separate reasons involving wind changing in relation to the location of certain warming sea water currents, shows a slight upward trend, though it also shows significant melting in some areas.

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.

In reality, at least 97 percent of climatologists agree that humans cause global warming, and the data show you can't explain the current rising temperatures without human influence.

The current global warming industry generates billions of dollars annually for research, which helps to explain why 36 percent consider climate scientists» research findings as being influenced by a desire to «advance their careers.»

The North Atlantic Oscillation and Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation's influences on warm ocean currents explain both Greenland's cyclical temperature behavior and current glacial retreat.

The study explains why Earth's current rapid warming is not a natural «recovery.»

Hamish Pritchard prepares us, «In most places in Antarctica, we can't explain the ice - shelf thinning through melting of snow at the surface, so it has to be driven by warm ocean currents melting them from below.

The cause of this emerging outbreak of methane, as explained by AMEG, is a horrendous cycle that started 20 - 30 years ago when Atlantic and Pacific Ocean currents, warmed by greenhouse gases, flowed into the Arctic Ocean.

Do you agree with the century old science that explains that 33 C and 150 W / m2 is the current level of GHG warming and that science can explain it quantitatively with radiative transfer theory, or would you even dispute Arrhenius?

Indeed none of them is able to hind - cast past observations and none of them has been able to foresee / explain current 14 years pause in climate warming since 1997 (even slight cooling since 2002).

CMIP5 models also fail to explain the current hiatus in warming even including natural variation.

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.

When I say recovery from the Little Ice Age in some sense «explains» global warming, I mean to say that the current warming trend began when the LIA ended and has been proceeding more or less apace ever since.

Curiously, in their FAQ section «Has global warming stopped» http://berkeleyearth.org/faq/#stopped they try to explain the current lack of warming by pointing out that there was similarly no warming from 1980 — 1995, without mentioning the two major volcanic eruptions that occurred during that period.

Limiting warming to 2 °C or less will require reductions in global ghg emissions below current emissions by as much as 80 percent by mid-century for the entire world and as we explained in the a recent article on «equity» at even greater reduction levels for most developed countries.

In his answer to question number 7, Dr. Meier said that the Antarctic was insulated from the rest of the world by the winds and currents, to explain the lack of warming there.

Michael Chrichton's «Aliens cause global warming» is another interesting and original attempt to explain how the current situation came to be.

Ultimately for me as a non expert, I haven't seen any convincing explanation to explain why the paleo record (which shows a warmer arctic and no corresponding large methane release) isn't a good analogue of the current warming trend in the arctic.

Although estimates vary, Prof Pierre Friedlingstein from the University of Exeter explained how the most conservative models estimate another 20 - 30 years of current emissions will warm the climate from its current state of 1C since the pre-industrial era, to 1.5 C.