Sentences with phrase «human ghg emissions»

The cause and impact of the observed multi-decadal cycles should be investigated more closely, even if this work ends up falsifying the current «consensus» notion of a climate being driven primarily by human GHG emissions.

John Coochey also neglects to inform that unless we choose to slow down human GHG emissions to the point where the natural carbon cycle can extract those emissions from the environment, we will be forever increasing the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere.

The IPCC has chosen 1950 as the starting point for their confabulations, because they have the preconceived notion that human GHG emissions (mainly CO2) are the main drivers of the global temperature (the CAGW enthusiasts prefer the post - satellite era because it renders a trend of about 0.16 °C / decade, even though they invariably select one of the terrestrial records, usually GISTEMP).

My point on the proposed «responses» (in this case primarily regional or global mitigation steps aimed at reducing human GHG emissions) is that they should be actionable and subjected to a cost / benefit analysis.

What's the rough breakdown of sea level rise attribution for human GHG emissions and emergence from the little ice age?

According to an analysis by climate scientist Benjamin Santer (PDF), Michaels» testimony that human GHG emissions caused less than half of the warming since 1950 was not credible.

Nature stopped warming despite unabated human GHG emissions, because Nature was not fooled into believing the climate models and their predicted climate sensitivity.

This point also becomes clear when one sees that there has been no warming over the past decade or more despite unabated human GHG emissions and CO2 concentrations reaching record levels.

Also, I am missing a specific statement that acknowledges that the short - term warming projections of TAR (0.15 ° to 0.3 °C per decade) and AR4 (0.2 °C per decade) turned out to be wrong, i.e. there has been no warming since the end of 2000, despite unabated human GHG emissions and atmospheric concentrations reaching record levels.

While I am pretty sure IPCC won't repeat the silly mistake of projecting global warming of 0.2 C per decade for the next two decades (as it did in AR4), it will be interesting to see whether or not IPCC modifies its AR5 report to include the possibility of continued global cooling over the next two or three decades despite unabated human GHG emissions and concentrations expected to reach new record levels.

Now (all of a sudden) they are deemed to be strong enough to overshadow unabated human GHG emissions and concentrations, which have risen to all - time record levels.

Until IPCC come to terms with the current «lack of warming» despite unabated human GHG emissions and concentrations reaching record levels, they are avoiding or ignoring an important «data point» in the «science» (because it doesn't fit the «religious beliefs»?).

Sort of like the 15 - year period that AGW hasn't been working (since 1998) despite unabated human GHG emissions.

The policy issues are, what is the marginal effect of human GHG emissions, and is it worth trying to do something about it by restricting those emissions?

The CAGW premise can be stated as follows: «most of the warming since 1950 is more than 90 % likely to have been caused by increased human GHGs and this represents a serious potential threat to humanity and our environment, unless actions are undertaken to curtail human GHG emissions, principally CO2»

The IPCC premise (let's call it CAGW for short) is that most of the observed warming since around 1950 was very likely [i.e. with greater than 90 % likelihood] caused by increased human GHG concentrations — AND that this constitutes a potential threat to humanity and our environment unless actions are undertaken to curtail human GHG emissions (principally CO2).

Many also question the scientific validity of the IPCC projections of future anthropogenic warming and its consequences, especially the IPCC premise that these are likely to result in serious negative impacts, i.e. a serious potential threat to humanity and our environment, unless actions are undertaken to curtail human GHG emissions (principally CO2).

To arrive at an attribution statement for the degree of temp rise due to human GHG emissions with such startling confidence, you MUST know with equal confidence the contributions from all other climate forcings operating over that period.

The «uncertainties» regarding the attribution of late 20th C warming have only INCREASED as a result of the decadal «pause» in warming, despite unabated human GHG emissions and levels reaching record levels.

The SAR included various human GHG emissions scenarios, so far its scenarios IS92a and b have been closest to actual emissions.

The upper end of the range would indicate that the maximum warming from human GHG emissions could approach the «magic» 2 °C allowable limit, while the lower end means that we will have no appreciable GH warming at all.

The «take home» here is that the Marcott et al. study itself does NOT provide any reliable indication of a «hockey stick blade» going upward to levels higher than those seen in the past 11,000 + years (purportedly as a result of human GHG emissions), which was the underlying claim.

Show me (and Girma) the empirical evidence to support the CAGW hypothesis, i.e. that human GHG emissions have been the primary cause for past global warming and that this represents a serious potential threat to humanity and our environment unless these emissions are curtailed dramatically.

IPCC has made temperature projections for the end of this century based on continued human GHG emissions (principally CO2) over the next several decades.

If the slight cooling trend continues for another few more years (say to a total of 20 + years) despite unabated human GHG emissions, we will have falsified the CAGW hypothesis of IPCC.

Now, based on those same models, «policy makers» should be deciding on «policies» to avert a potential disaster from human - induced global warming by curtailing human GHG emissions.

But simply: where is the empirical scientific evidence (Feynman) to support the IPCC hypothesis that human GHG emissions have caused most of the warming since 1950?

What resulting observations do you think would seriously call into question the argument that the warming we have experienced since the late 20C is predominantly due to human GHG emissions?

However you slice it, lolwot, there is a current «pause» (or «standstill») in the warming of the «globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature anomaly» (used by IPCC to measure «global warming»), despite unabated human GHG emissions and CO2 levels (Mauna Loa) reaching record levels.

«The energy sector is the largest and fastest growing contributor to climate change globally — 35 % of all human GHG emissions come from this sector,» the call says.

It's pretty hard to «overinterpret» a 10 + year stop in global warming (actual slight cooling instead), despite unabated human GHG emissions and concentrations reaching record levels, plus IPCC model - based predictions of 0.2 C per decade warming.

The hypothesis that the overwhelming current climate forcing factor is human GHG emissions has already been falsified, if not by the temperature trend 1945 — 1975 (such as it is), then by that of the past 18 years.

Although the reason for this disparity is unclear, one speculation is that the sample of respondents in the current study was more heterogenous in terms of political views than the sample in Study 1, perhaps incorporating a greater proportion of political conservatives who are known to be less likely to accept that human GHG emissions are causing anthropogenic global warming than political liberals or moderates [38]--[42].

As it so happens, there were significant human GHG emissions in the early 20th Century, which caused atmospheric CO2 levels to rise from 300 to 310 parts per million by volume (ppmv) from 1910 to 1945.

AGW is a hypothesis that makes sense, namely: — GHGs absorb outgoing radiation, thereby contributing to warming (GH theory)-- CO2 is a GHG (as is water vapor plus some minor GHGs)-- CO2 concentrations have risen (mostly since measurements started in Mauna Loa in 1959)-- global temperature has risen since 1850 (in ~ 30 - year warming cycles with ~ 30 - year cycles of slight cooling in between)-- humans emit CO2 and other GHGs — ergo, human GHG emissions have very likely been a major contributor to higher GHG concentrations, very likely contributing to the observed warming

We (including you plus Revkin) have no earthly notion of whether or not human GHG emissions will result in profound negative consequences.

And the more decades we have of no warming despite unabated human GHG emissions and atmospheric GHG concentrations reaching record levels, the more the case for an AGW driven climate unravels (the underlying message of the DM article).

Hansen clearly specified for his Scenario A (BaU) that the rate of increase of human GHG emissions would remain at 1.5 % per year.

Any warming observed prior to WWII is indicative of «global warming» (GW), but (since there were no significant human GHG emissions yet) is counterindicative of anthropogenic greenhouse warming (AGW), since something other than human GHGs caused it, raising the question: if non GH warming caused this warming, could it not also have caused the most recent extended warming period?

I believe the key question is, «how many years does it have to last despite unabated human GHG emissions in order to falsify the IPCC model - base climate sensitivity (mean 3.2 C) and the IPCC «CAGW» premise as outlined in AR4?»

IPCC has sold a bill of goods to «policymakers» and the general public, which states that most of past warming was caused by human GHGs (AGW) and that this represents a serious potential threat to humanity and our environment unless human GHG emissions (principally CO2) are curtailed dramatically.

-- Others indicated that the observed current lack of warming despite unabated human GHG emissions falsified the premise that AGW is a major factor (the CAGW premise of IPCC)[red]

But the most convincing counterforce is Mother Nature, herself — and if she gives us another decade of slight cooling or at least no warming, despite continued unabated human GHG emissions and concentrations reaching record levels, she will essentially have killed this strange form of delusion called CAGW.

-- The same goes for the earlier multi-decadal period of slight cooling (~ 1940 - 1970) and especially for the early 20thC period of rapid warming (1910 - 1940), which occurred prior to significant human GHG emissions.

The assumption that the earths climate is a system that responds in a predictable and exponential way to inputs like human GHG emissions is appearing to be false.

PS IPCC had predicted warming of 0.15 to 0.3 C per decade in TAR and 0.2 C per decade in AR4 — yet in actual fact, lolwot, we saw «no warming» despite unabated human GHG emissions.

I see you are holding out against human ghg emissions dominating 21st century warming.

Who wants to go on record first admitting that human ghg emissions dominate global temperature changes?

They are still disputing human ghg emissions will dominate 21st century climate change.

Suffice it to say that there are indications that at least a major part of the current sea ice retreat is due to naturally occurring shifts in weather patterns, rather than simply to Arctic swarming caused by human GHG emissions, as some people apparently believe.