Sentences with phrase «from significant global warming»

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.

The Province of B.C. is willing to make significant environmental sacrifices for projects that will bring economic benefits to the Province of B.C.. On the other hand, they will block a project needed by a land - locked sister province, a project that would benefit all of Canada, claiming that they are doing so because they must protect the environment, protect the land from damage and reduce global warming.

The international community faces the daunting task of determining which countries face the most significant impacts from global warming

Boulder, Colo., USA: Cretaceous climate warming led to a significant methane release from the seafloor, indicating potential for similar destabilization of gas hydrates under modern global warming.

4:38 p.m. Updated I read Mark Fischetti's piece on global warming and hurricanes in Scientific American just now, which points to a recent PNAS study finding «a statistically significant trend in the frequency of large surge events» from tropical cyclones in the Atlantic.

Note, this is separate from the highly debated issue of whether global warming has led to a significant increase in Category 4 and 5 hurricanes since the 1970s.

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so - called «consensus» on man - made global warming.

I'm simply questioning the validity of the hypothesis offered by so many climate scientists that CO2 emissions from fossil fuels are a significant factor in global warming, to the extent that they must be drastically reduced.

Victor (243): I'm simply questioning the validity of the hypothesis offered by so many climate scientists that CO2 emissions from fossil fuels are a significant factor in global warming, to the extent that they must be drastically reduced.

The paper also finds that several significant past climate fluctuations — including a warm spell that peaked around 1100 A.D. called the medieval warm period and the so - called little ice age from the 1400s through the 1700s — were global in scope.

Because the long - term warming trends are highly significant relative to our estimates of the magnitude of natural variability, the current decadal period of stable global mean temperature does nothing to alter a fundamental conclusion from the AR4: warming has unequivocally been observed and documented.

His strong words are particularly significant given that Nordhaus has, in the past, strongly challenged analyses — notably the Stern Review — pointing to high economic costs from global warming.

Considering global warming, the mature forest, apart from just being an expensive and completely full carbon repository, it is actually a significant contributor to global warming.

So after all this blather from me, I conclude rather hurredly — I believe I have demonstrated that any proposed BNO, any big natural oscillation with a 60 - odd year period, has no evidential basis as a significant contributor to recent global warming and that BNO remains nought but hypothetical conjecture.

An article for CNSNews posted last September 30, cited a statement from Dr. John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH), that there has been no statistically significant global warming for the past 17 years.

Tung & Zhou in their analysis are removing a significant portion of the global warming from the global warming, artificially decreasing the trends.

A «pause» in the global temperature trend can be diagnosed, when both of the following criteria are fulfilled: a) based on a robust statistical analysis, the global temperature trend is not statistically distinguishable from the Zero trend, b) based on a robust statistical analysis, the global temperature trend is statistically distinguishable from the longer - term, multi-decadal warming trend (which itself is highly statistically significant).

Just to add the appropriate emphasis to what the past 164 years of empirical science tell us, the «C3» estimator replica above also reveals what would happen to «global warming» if the entire U.S. economy shuts down for one year, eliminating some 5.8 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion - again, it's a nothing - significant outcome for the climate.

Again, no significant trend of the global averaged Gaa [atmospheric greenhouse effect] is found from 2003 to 2014 (Fig. 2) because the enhanced warming effect over the western tropical Pacific is largely counteracted by the weakened warming influence on the central tropical Pacific.

Warm ocean water plays a significant role in melting glacial ice from below, and a better mapping of Antarctica's and Greenland's landforms beneath the ice suggests that ocean melting of the glacier fronts may play a more significant role than previously thought as the ice sheets retreat (under a global warming scenario).

While Republicans» belief in human - induced global warming has declined 10 percentage points from 2003 to 2008 (from 52 % to 42 %), Democrats» belief has been steady (possibly even rising slightly, though the increase from 68 % to 73 % is not statistically significant).

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).

Scientists proposing catastrophic majority anthropogenic global warming models (a.k.a. «Climate change») bear the burden of proof of providing clear robust evidence supporting validated model predictions of anthropogenic warming with strong significant differences from this climatic null hypothesis.

The Obama administration rolled out a plan Monday to cut carbon dioxide emissions from power plants by 30 percent by 2030, setting in motion one of the most significant actions on global warming in U.S. history.

From the comments we find that Taylor isn't a denier himself as he believes in global warming and that human influence has been significant, so where is the argument, and wouldn't Heartland be upset about this admission from one of its From the comments we find that Taylor isn't a denier himself as he believes in global warming and that human influence has been significant, so where is the argument, and wouldn't Heartland be upset about this admission from one of its from one of its own?

Marcott paper Basically the folks at RC have probably made poor ol Marcott respond that the uptick did not matter anyway its not important, significant, robust etc don't rely on it just forget about it please etc but unfortunately for them as Ross MC on Realclimate reply, at CA says «But that is precisely what they do in Figure 3 of their paper, and it is the basis of their claim that «Global temperature, therefore, has risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels of the Holocene within the past century, reversing the long - term cooling trend that began ~ 5000 yr B.P.» Without the uptick in their proxy reconstruction this kind of statement could never have been made.

As a result of the significant scientific effort to date, aided by public concern, models simulating climate change have gained considerable skill... There will be many scientific and technical challenges along the way, but the hope is that simulations of the global environment will be able to maximise the number of people around the world who can adapt to, and be protected from the worst impacts of, global warming.

From Inderscience Publishers and United Nations University: Loss and damage from climate change Despite attempts at adaption losses and damage from climate change are significant An open access special issue of the International Journal of Global Warming brings together, for the first time, empirical evidence of loss and damage from the perspective of affected peoplFrom Inderscience Publishers and United Nations University: Loss and damage from climate change Despite attempts at adaption losses and damage from climate change are significant An open access special issue of the International Journal of Global Warming brings together, for the first time, empirical evidence of loss and damage from the perspective of affected peoplfrom climate change Despite attempts at adaption losses and damage from climate change are significant An open access special issue of the International Journal of Global Warming brings together, for the first time, empirical evidence of loss and damage from the perspective of affected peoplfrom climate change are significant An open access special issue of the International Journal of Global Warming brings together, for the first time, empirical evidence of loss and damage from the perspective of affected peoplfrom the perspective of affected people...

If we want to prevent global warming from continuing along its present path, some significant changes will have to be instituted.

Barr, a former Republican congressman from Georgia, said it is time to recognize that global warming «is a very serious problem» and that it will get «dramatically worse» unless significant action is taken.

Resolved There is significant (or discernible) evidence of anthropogenic global warming, distinct from land use effects and natural variability, over the past

It would have to be shown that the recent temperature record can be statistically significantly distinguished from the statistically significant warming signal, which can be detected when performing an analysis that uses data over multiple decades, from the mid-1970ies to present, or from the mid-1970ies up to the time, when the alleged change in the behavior of the global atmospheric temperature is supposed to have occurred.

Looking at the amplitude the AMO could have conceivably contributed to global warming, perhaps one fiftieth to one thirtieth of the total, we are very far away from having to consider this, or any of the even smaller parts of the stadium wave, significant.

He was asked: «Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically - significant global warming?»

Nitrogen fertilizers represent one of the largest sources of GHG emissions from global agricultural production resulting in significant emissions of nitrous oxide (N2O), a GHG with approximately 300 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide (CO2).

There are many examples where the transition from paid employment in climate research to retirement has been accompanied by a significant change of heart away from acknowledging the seriousness of global warming.

One well - known paper (Lewandowsky, Oberauer, & Gignac, 2013; referred to as LOG12 from here on) surveyed blog readers, finding a small but statistically significant link between doubts about anthropogenic global warming and conspiratorial thinking.

Werner Brozek: What you are missing is the fact that just because the trend since a certain time is not statistically - significant does not mean that global warming has stopped at that time, particularly when the difference of the trend from the longer term trend is not statistically - significant either.

Just for the record, apart from major 1998 and 2024 - 16 ocean El Niño events, satellite instruments, the best measurements available, show no statistically significant mean global warming now for nearly two decades.

From the paper: «The results also 1) reveal a significant level of coupling between ocean and land temperatures that remains even after the effects of ENSO and volcanic eruptions have been removed; 2) serve to highlight the improvements in the quality of the time series of global - mean land temperatures with the increase in the areal coverage of the station network from 1951 onward; and 3) yield a residual time series in which the signature of anthropogenically induced global warming is more prominent.&raFrom the paper: «The results also 1) reveal a significant level of coupling between ocean and land temperatures that remains even after the effects of ENSO and volcanic eruptions have been removed; 2) serve to highlight the improvements in the quality of the time series of global - mean land temperatures with the increase in the areal coverage of the station network from 1951 onward; and 3) yield a residual time series in which the signature of anthropogenically induced global warming is more prominent.&rafrom 1951 onward; and 3) yield a residual time series in which the signature of anthropogenically induced global warming is more prominent.»

Note the slide from «has been no statistically significant net global warming for the last fourteen years» to «warming has ceased», committing the basic newbie error against which all budding stats students are warned.

This was significant, said Carrington, «because the rate of global warming from 2000 - 2009 is lower than the 0.16 C per decade trend seen since the late 1970s -LSB-...] the warming rate for the past 10 years is estimated at 0.08 - 0.16 C».

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from human activity and livestock are a significant driver of climate change, trapping heat in the earth's atmosphere and triggering global warming.

For example, in the same study, Doran and Zimmerman received responses from 3,146 Earth Scientists; 82 % agreed that human activity is a significant contributing factor to global warming.

«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.

The significant changes in the Arctic are key pieces of evidence for global warming, but the observations from Arctic are complemented by evidence from around the world.

(The only one I can think of, by the only really solidly qualified contrarian, Lindzen, who also claimed that tobacco wasn't linked to lung cancer, came up with an Iris theory that has been thoroughly repudiated (recent studies have in fact continued to strongly show increased atmospheric moisture), but his theory of a significant enough decrease to keep the earth from significantly warming at the same time this radical shift toward lack of global cloud cover (and far more drought everywhere?)

The discussion of whether 2012 is the 8th, 9th 10th or 11th warmest annual global average surface temperature is intellectually engaging (and a bit of a waste of the engaged intellect), but a more significant point is that the warm years since 1998 have all occured without a transient bump comparable to the one that 1998 recieved from the signifcant El Nino that occured.

«Sure, they'll probably try to confuse us with trick questions: Like why, apart from natural 1998 and 2015 El Nino spikes, satellites haven't recorded any statistically significant global warming for nearly two decades; why sea levels have been rising at a constant rate of 7 inches per century without acceleration; and why no category 3 - 5 hurricanes have struck the U.S. coast since October 2005 — a record lull since 1900.

Dr Meier:» The significant changes in the Arctic are key pieces of evidence for global warming, but the observations from Arctic are complemented by evidence from around the world.»