Sentences with phrase «from other anthropogenic forcings»

Greenhouse gases contributed a global mean surface warming likely to be between 0.5 °C and 1.3 °C over the period 1951 — 2010, with the contributions from other anthropogenic forcings likely to be between — 0.6 °C and 0.1 °C, from natural forcings likely to be between — 0.1 °C and 0.1 °C, and from internal variability likely to be between — 0.1 °C and 0.1 °C.

Then you have what the abstract says except you put -(mainly from aerosols)- instead of - from other anthropogenic forcings.

Greenhouse gases contributed a global mean surface warming likely to be in the range of 0.5 °C to 1.3 °C over the period 1951 − 2010, with the contributions from other anthropogenic forcings, including the cooling effect of aerosols, likely to be in the range of − 0.6 °C to 0.1 °C.

• Greenhouse gases contributed a global mean surface warming likely to be in the range of 0.5 °C to 1.3 °C over the period 1951 to 2010, with the contributions from other anthropogenic forcings, including the cooling effect of aerosols, likely to be in the range of − 0.6 °C to 0.1 °C.

Not exact matches

The aquarium trade and other wildlife consumers are at a crossroads forced by threats from global climate change and other anthropogenic stressors that have weakened coastal ecosystems.

It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.

AR5: It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.

But more generally, something I've wondered is: while in the global annual average, aerosols could be said to partly cancel (net effect) the warming from anthropogenic greenhouse forcing, the circulatory, latitudinal, regional, seasonal, diurnal, and internal variability changes would be some combination of reduced changes from reduced AGW + some other changes related to aerosol forcing.

Summary for Policymakers Chapter 1: Introduction Chapter 2: Observations: Atmosphere and Surface Chapter 3: Observations: Ocean Chapter 4: Observations: Cryosphere Chapter 5: Information from Paleoclimate Archives Chapter 6: Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles Chapter 7: Clouds and Aerosols Chapter 8: Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing Chapter 8 Supplement Chapter 9: Evaluation of Climate Models Chapter 10: Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: from Global to Regional Chapter 11: Near - term Climate Change: Projections and Predictability Chapter 12: Long - term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility Chapter 13: Sea Level Change Chapter 14: Climate Phenomena and their Relevance for Future Regional Climate Change Chapter 14 Supplement Technical Summary

Multi-signal detection and attribution analyses, which quantify the contributions of different natural and anthropogenic forcings to observed changes, show that greenhouse gas forcing alone during the past half century would likely have resulted in greater than the observed warming if there had not been an offsetting cooling effect from aerosol and other forcings.

In addition, since IPCC tells us that the total net anthropogenic radiative forcing is essentially equal to the radiative forcing from CO2 alone, we can essentially ignore other anthropogenic forcing factors (positive and negative).

In 2013, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report stated a clear expert consensus that: «It is extremely likely [defined as 95 - 100 % certainty] that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic [human - caused] increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.»

Results on the importance and contribution from anthropogenic forcings other than greenhouse gases vary more between different approaches.

The IPCC's attribution argument is that only the warming from ~ 1950 to present was caused (mostly) by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.

Paleo evidence have indeed shown quite strong spikes in temperature anomolies which gets back to the most important point of your paper with Judith: the extent of natural internal variability needs to be disentangled from anthropogenic and other forcings before we can make any conclusions about the future course of climate.

This backs up the IPCC attribution statement «It is extremely likely [95 percent confidence] more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.»

Again IPCC attribution statement: «It is extremely likely [95 percent confidence] more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.»

IPCC tells us that 93 % of the past forcing was from anthropogenic components and that all other anthropogenic components beside CO2 (aerosols, other GHGHs, etc.) cancelled one another out so that total anthropogenic forcing = CO2 forcing.

From memory the IPCC report concluded that burning fossil fuels was only responsible for about half of anthropogenic climate forcing, presumably meaning (extending your logic) that if we did manage to burn them all, AND continue our other practices, we could be looking at 12 degrees warming in total.

We see that this gets us to somewhere between 0.35 and 0.65 deg C for a CO2 increase from 290 to 390 ppmv, depending on whose estimate we accept for the % forcing from CO2 (IPCC at 93 %, several independent solar studies at 50 %, both based on the IPCC assumption that all other anthropogenic forcing factors cancelled one another out).

«We evaluate to what extent the temperature rise in the past 100 years was a trend or a natural fluctuation and analyze 2249 worldwide monthly temperature records from GISS (NASA) with the 100 - year period covering 1906 - 2005 and the two 50 - year periods from 1906 to 1955 and 1956 to 2005... The data document a strong urban heat island eff ect (UHI) and a warming with increasing station elevation... About a quarter of all the records for the 100 - year period show a fall in temperatures... that the observed temperature records are a combination of long - term correlated records with an additional trend, which is caused for instance by anthropogenic CO2, the UHI or other forcings... As a result, the probabilities that the observed temperature series are natural have values roughly between 40 % and 90 %, depending on the stations characteristics and the periods considered.»

«It is extremely likely -LCB- 95 % + certainty -RCB- that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.»

a) that natural forcing represented 7 % of the total forcing b) that all anthropogenic forcing componenets other than CO2 (other GHGs, aerosols, land use changes, etc.) cancelled one another out, so that forcing from CO2 = total anthropogenic forcing c) that the CO2 / temperature relation is logarithmic

The authors find that the results from each of these analyses are consistent, showing that the effects of changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols and other anthropogenic forcings on the climate of the Arctic region can be detected.

that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.»

Tett SFB et al., JGR 2002 (Estimation of natural and anthropogenic contributions to twentieth century temperature change,) says «Our analysis suggests that the early twentieth century warming can best be explained by a combination of warming due to increases in greenhouse gases and natural forcing, some cooling due to other anthropogenic forcings, and a substantial, but not implausible, contribution from internal variability.

[Page 16] This summary paragraph claims that the spatial patterns of warming from models forced with GHG's and other anthropogenic forcings agrees well with observations.

It is extremely likely [95 percent confidence] all of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.

It also follows using the same semantics that: «It is more likely than not that more than the entire observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.»

In order to separate out the effects of greenhouse gases (GHG), these analyses typically regress time series of many observational variables — including latitudinally and / or otherwise spatially distinguished surface temperatures — on model - simulated changes arising not only from separate greenhouse gas and natural forcings but also from other separate non-GHG anthropogenic forcings.

The phrase «It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.»

Over at RealClimate, on this topic they claim» It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.

IPCC2013 SPM - 10 admitted there may be «in some models, an overestimate of the response to increasing greenhouse gas and other anthropogenic forcing (dominated by the effects of aerosols)», but retained the alarming upper limit of 4.5 º C from IPCC2007.

IPCC tells us that all anthropogenic forcing components other than CO2 (aerosols, other GHGs, etc.) cancelled one another out over this period, so the forcing from CO2 = total anthropogenic forcing ~ 1.6 W / m ^ 2.

And as Judith Curry points out about the current climate, there are many problems with the claim that «more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together» — far from speaking for itself, the statement needs unpacking and its premises interrogating.

The IPCC says (in the AR5 SPM), «It is extremely likely [defined as 95 - 100 % certainty] that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic [human - caused] increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.»

We propose here a new paradigm of anthropogenic impacts on seawater pH. This new paradigm provides a canonical approach towards integrating the multiple components of anthropogenic forcing that lead to changes in coastal pH. We believe that this paradigm, whilst accommodating that of OA by anthropogenic CO2, avoids the limitations the current OA paradigm faces to account for the dynamics of coastal ecosystems, where some ecosystems are not showing any acidification or basification trend whilst others show a much steeper acidification than expected for reasons entirely different from anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

(The total anthropogenic forcing includes other GHGs and aerosols; the net effect happens to be (with significant error bars) similar to that from CO2 alone.)

Re 422 wili — I was looking at figure 2 (as best I could in the little version you get from behind paywall)-- it looks like, for the DEP 4.5 emissions -LRB-(DEP refers to forcing (from anthropogenic emissions, I think) W / m ^ 2 in 2100) a bit more than doubling CO2 by 2100, setting aside other GHGs), if sensitivity is 3 K / doubling, the permafrost reservoir declines but starts to level off significantly before reaching 0 (I believe that's 0 % of the permafrost reservoir?).

A debate concerns the nature of these increases with some studies attributing them to a natural climate fluctuation, known as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), and others suggesting climate change related to anthropogenic increases in radiative forcing from greenhouse - gases.

Anthropogenic - era radiativeforcings from CO2, from long - lived (LLGHG) and short - lived (SLGHG) greenhouse gases are added to other forcings to yield total anthropogenic - era forcings ΔF2x, which are then reduced by a probability - densAnthropogenic - era radiativeforcings from CO2, from long - lived (LLGHG) and short - lived (SLGHG) greenhouse gases are added to other forcings to yield total anthropogenic - era forcings ΔF2x, which are then reduced by a probability - densanthropogenic - era forcings ΔF2x, which are then reduced by a probability - density function.

A possible prolonged lull in solar irradiance, if it transpires, would likely partially ameliorate any anticipated warming from anthropogenic greenhouse gases or other forcings.

«Modelling studies are also in moderately good agreement with observations during the first half of the 20th century when both anthropogenic and natural forcings are considered, although assessments of which forcings are important differ, with some studies finding that solar forcing is more important (Meehl et al., 2004) while other studies find that volcanic forcing (Broccoli et al., 2003) or internal variability (Delworth and Knutson, 2000) could be more important... The mid-century cooling that the model simulates in some regions is also observed, and is caused in the model by regional negative surface forcing from organic and black carbon associated with biomass burning.

To ΔF2xCO2 is added the slightly net - negative sum of all other anthropogenic - era radiativeforcings, calculated from IPCC values (Table 1), to obtain total anthropogenic - era radiative forcing ΔF2x at CO2 doubling (Eqn.

In other words, without offsetting from natural cooling, we would have instead warmed by over 0.9 C, rather than the observed 0.7 C over that time, due to anthropogenic forcing.