Sentences with phrase «human influences of global warming»

The problems that cause global warming are divided into two categories include natural and human influences of global warming.

Not exact matches

These fluctuations superimpose the general global warming trend since the beginning of industrialization and thus complicate the accurate determination of human influence on the climate.

As I understand it, the GCR - idea does not deny human influences on global warming and does not really provide a good estimate of what the magnitude of GCR influences might be.

Incidentally, as I see it, your reconstruction of Manns data showing the 15th century to be warmer than now is even more damming than Manns original construct, as it indicates a gradual decline in global temperatures until 1850, before human influence reversed that trend.

«The authors clearly demonstrate that a human influence on wildland fire as a consequence of global warming isn't just a prediction for the future — it's happening now,» said Kevin Anchukaitis, a University of Arizona scientist who was not involved with the study.

Given that many claim humans are influencing global warming and the number of people that now are on the planet I do not know how a thinking person can not see that most of us have to change our focus on consuming animal products.

Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes.

Unfortunately for policymakers and the public, while the basic science pointing to a rising human influence on climate is clear, many of the most important questions will remain surrounded by deep complexity and uncertainty for a long time to come: the pace at which seas will rise, the extent of warming from a certain buildup of greenhouse gases (climate sensitivity), the impact on hurricanes, the particular effects in particular places (what global warming means for Addis Ababa or Atlanta).

My answer — On the basis of billions of years of historical global warming periods, some of which happened rapidly and without any human influence whatsoever — and whose specific causes remain a mystery.

Global Warming vs Climate Change,» an interesting new study of Americans» perceptions of the two dominant shorthand phrases used to describe the building human influence on the climate system.

I've been criticized by some environmentalists in recent years for writing that the long - term picture (more CO2 = warmer world = less ice = higher seas and lots of climatic and ecological changes) is the only aspect of human - caused global warming that is solidly established, and that efforts to link dramatic weather - related events to the human influence on climate could backfire should nature wiggle the other way for awhile.

Weart is best known to Dot Earth regulars as the author of the essential guide to 100 years of research pointing to a human influence on climate, «The Discovery of Global Warming» (here's my 2003 review of that book for The Times).

The journal Science has published a letter signed by 255 members of the National Academy of Sciences, including 11 Nobel laureates, that pushes back sharply after months of assaults on evidence pointing to a growing and disruptive human influence on the climate and some of the researchers who've done important work on global warming.

Hundreds of private e-mails and documents hacked from a computer server at a British university are causing a stir among global warming skeptics, who say they show that climate scientists conspired to overstate the case for a human influence on climate change.

For a long time there's been a strong perception among those of us tracking research on human - caused global warming that meteorologists are more apt to doubt that humans could dangerously disrupt climate than the much smaller community of climatologists studying the overall climate system and what influences its patterns.

As I understand it, the GCR - idea does not deny human influences on global warming and does not really provide a good estimate of what the magnitude of GCR influences might be.

But efforts to tease out the impact of human - driven global warming in the region are complicated by the big influence around the Bering Sea of natural variations in ocean conditions, including the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

The suggestion for a counter-investigative science force — or red team approach — was presented in prepared testimony by scientists known for questioning the influence of human activity on global warming.

Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes (see Figure SPM.6 and Table SPM.1).

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.

Climate scientists say they are 95 percent certain that human influence has been the dominant cause of global warming since 1950.

Given that global warming is «unequivocal», and is «very likely» due to human activities to quote the 2007 IPCC report, the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence.

In the main text of the paper he says «Given that global warming is «unequivocal», and is «very likely» due to human activities to quote the 2007 IPCC report, the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence.»

If the as - stated formulation is correct, namely Given that global warming is «unequivocal», to quote the 2007 IPCC report, the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence.

If by human influence and global warming they mean the 2007 IPCC report then that is already out of date and wrong.

- Finally I'd address the duplicity (if I may call it that) in Trenberths statement: «Given that global warming is «unequivocal», to quote the 2007 IPCC report, the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence.

The abstract of his paper says: «Given that global warming is unequivocal, the null hypothesis should be that all weather events are affected by global warming...» — nothing about human influence.

... then we have reduced effect of human influence to just a tiny fraction of what is normally considered by Global warming people.

We're not offering a «counter-claim» about the science, because our position is that even the concrete, incontrovertible, unassailable fact of human influence on global warming and climate change does not, by itself, make a case for action.

Its original goal was to assess possible human influences on global warming and potential risks of human - induced warming.

Among those papers, we classified one of Spencer's and two of Christy's as minimizing or rejecting the human influence on global warming, and the others as not taking a position on the issue.

Most do not believe that human influence is the cause of global warming, some do not even believe in global warming at all.

One characterisation of the IPCC is that it is politically motivated to exaggerate the dangers of global warming and the level of human influence on climate change.

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 own?

By your admission, your interest in the technology came before much of your «education on Global Warming;» and I think this reinforces the point many have brought out in this thread: Cars like the Volt are very much worthwhile regardless of whether or not humans are influencing climate change.

This would be some combination of warmings and coolings due to natural and / or human influences such as aerosols, instabilities in ocean currents, Length - Of - Day (LOD) fluctuations, the stadium wave (Wyatt and Curry), the 3M effect (me, December 17, Global Environmental Change section, this AGU Fall Meeting), etc. etcof warmings and coolings due to natural and / or human influences such as aerosols, instabilities in ocean currents, Length - Of - Day (LOD) fluctuations, the stadium wave (Wyatt and Curry), the 3M effect (me, December 17, Global Environmental Change section, this AGU Fall Meeting), etc. etcOf - Day (LOD) fluctuations, the stadium wave (Wyatt and Curry), the 3M effect (me, December 17, Global Environmental Change section, this AGU Fall Meeting), etc. etc..

And, it's precisely that «signature» of human - influenced (anthropogenic) global warming that is not at issue with serious scientists throughout the world.

I don't know about you, but it seems to me that most of those abstracts mention global climate change but not global warming or human influence upon the climate change.

Such is the profound nature of human - caused global warming, that it has overcome these many short - term natural cooling influences.

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.

Somewhere recently I read that Ben Santer singlehandedly edited the scientists» report to IPCC so that, instead of it reading as the scientists wrote it, to the effect that they could NOT be certain of human influence in global warming, it read to the effect that they WERE (at least «reasonably») certain of human influence.

While natural sources of climate variability are significant, multiple lines of evidence indicate that human influences have had an increasingly dominant effect on global climate warming observed since the mid-twentieth century.

Global warming will have a negligible influence on human morbidity and the spread of infectious diseases.

Our team agreed upon definitions of categories to put the papers in: explicit or implicit endorsement of human - caused global warming, no opinion, and implicit or explicit rejection or minimization of the human influence, and began the long process of rating over 12,000 abstracts.

Now, adding to this miserably low warming influence of CO2 is the recent admission by establishment climate science that natural climatic forces have a powerful say in the trend of global temperatures, regardless of human CO2 emissions.

When combining all this very obvious evidence, one can fairly surmise that either global warming is not very «global» or that human CO2 emissions are not a very powerful influence on the Earth's climate or institutional, orthodoxy climate science has failed, badly - or maybe it's a lot of all three.

The hockey stick graph is a high - profile example among literally thousands of pieces of evidence that have contributed to the present scientific consensus on the human influence on global warming.

Note that while the BEST approach is based on correlations, they are correlations of variables with known causal relationships (i.e. an increased greenhouse effect is known to cause global warming), although they do not appear to have considered some important influences like human aerosol emissions or the El Niño Southern Oscillation.

A (2) Modern warming, glacier and sea ice recession, sea level rise, drought and hurricane intensities... are all occurring at unprecedentedly high and rapid rates, and the effects are globally synchronous (not just regional)... and thus dangerous consequences to the global biosphere and human civilizations loom in the near future as a consequence of anthropogenic influences.

As the term implies, global warming is the gradual increase in the average temperature of the atmosphere and ocean due to human influences.