Sentences with phrase «is due to natural»

If death is due to natural causes then there will only be a 40 % payout in year one, 75 % if you die in year two, and 100 % in year 3 and on.

Therefore, if your paint damage is due to natural causes, like being exposed to the outdoor elements over a period of time, or simple aging, your comprehensive coverage will not likely pay for the repair costs, because wear and tear is expected in the normal course of events.

The definition of «Natural Disaster» is flood, hurricane, earthquake, or blizzard that is due to natural causes.

«Natural Disaster» means flood, fire, hurricane, tornado, earthquake, volcanic eruption, blizzard or avalanche that is due to natural causes.

Using Travel Guard's Gold plan as an example, they define a natural disaster as «a flood, hurricane, tornado, earthquake, fire, wildfire, volcanic eruption, or blizzard that is due to natural causes».

«Natural Disaster» means a flood, hurricane, tornado, earthquake, or blizzard that is due to natural causes.

This policy provides a graded benefit, which means that if death of the insured that is due to natural causes — in other words, death that is caused by means other than an accident — during the first two years in which the policy has been in force, the named policy beneficiary will only receive back all of the premiums that were paid in, plus 10 percent, as versus the face amount of the policy.

But the real questions are: how much of current warming is due to natural variability, how much to GHGs, how much temperature increase will we have in a century if GHGs double, what good and bad things are likely to happen as a result, and what is the net value of these good and bad things vs. the costs of taking action soon, vs. taking the costs actions a decade or more down the road?

Instead, the study suggests the slowdown is due to natural chemical limits on the oceans» ability to absorb carbon.

The idea that the small cooling from the 1940s to 1970s is due to natural variability still can not be ruled out, although more likely this is a smaller part of the explanation and the cooling is primarily due to the «dust» neglected by Broecker, i.e. due to the rise of anthropogenic aerosol pollution (Taylor and Penner, 1994).

In his presentation at the 7th International Conference for Climate and Energy in Germany (the original presentation is in German), Lunning claims that warming is due to natural fluctuations in solar activity: [11]

MOST temperature variation is due to natural evaporative effects, as I have shown in my forthcoming Econometrics paper (advance copy at http://www.timcurtin.com).

and MOST temperature variation is due to natural evaporative effects, as I have shown in my forthcoming Econometrics paper (advance copy at http://www.timcurtin.com).

As for thermal inertia, it's also entirely irrelevant how much is due to natural forcing and how much to anthropogenic forcing.

Max Mayfield, director of the National Hurricane Center in Miami: «The increased activity since 1995 is due to natural fluctuations (and) cycles of hurricane activity driven by the Atlantic Ocean itself along with the atmosphere above it and not enhanced substantially by global warming,» he testified.

The rest is due to natural cycles and processes over which we humans have no control.

«Now, if he's suggesting that natural variability is an «obvious reality» as in «all observed warming is due to natural variability, and rising levels of CO2 have nothing to do with it», that's * not * rational»

Now, if he's suggesting that natural variability is an «obvious reality» as in «all observed warming is due to natural variability, and rising levels of CO2 have nothing to do with it», that's * not * rational, and it's also something that Mosher knows to be false.

The most likely scenario is that suggested by the climate model in Meehl (2011) & Meehl (2013)- the majority of this slowing of surface temperatures is due to natural variabilty (deep ocean warming) superimposed atop a long - term warming trend (greenhouse gas - induced warming of the surface ocean).

What it doesn't do is tell scientists how much of the remaining warming is due to natural climate cycles (not including volcanoes) versus humanity's carbon dioxide emissions enhancing Earth's natural greenhouse effect.

«The increased activity since 1995 is due to natural fluctuations (and) cycles of hurricane activity driven by the Atlantic Ocean itself along with the atmosphere above it and not enhanced substantially by global warming,» he testified.

We are told that this pause is due to natural factors working against AGW.

When you ask a different question, how many C of the.9 C observed is due to natural variability, the question of getting both the amplitude and phasing of that variability is put front and center.

While this faulty paper has never been retracted, it is now no longer quoted as evidence by the IPCC — nor accepted by the overwhelming majority of IPCC scientists: Most if not all warming of the early 20th century is due to natural, not human causes.

And yes, they do think it is due to some natural variability happening somewhere in the earth's core.

I think a modest temperature increase is, overall, beneficial (which is why I moved from NY to FL: ^) and that the large majority of the warming we have experienced is due to natural cycles not under human control.

If the cooling since 1998 is due to natural variability, how do we know that the warming from 1980 to 1998 (barely a longer time period) was NOT due to natural variability?

March, 2008 Fred Singer was involved in creating the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), a venture partly funded by the Heartland Institute (which currently contributes over $ 300,000 per year to funding the report) and which is designed to be a counterpoint to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), except which argues that climate change is due to natural causes.

ryland - Attribution studies, looking at how much of recent climate change is due to us and how much is due to natural variations, is a very significant aspect of climate study.

The NULL Hypothesis: Climate change is due to natural causes

I believe it is due to natural variations in the earths climate and not due to human activity and i don't think we should even give this issue the time of day.

In no way can my summary of the research regarding the impact of regional climate change on the Viking civilization and Europe during the Little Ice Age be used to «prove» the current global warming is due to a natural cycle.»

The climate models are still absolutely unable to discern either the amount or rate of global warming / cooling that is due to natural forces.

The question, however, is if this increase in temperature in the Arctic, is due to natural variations or burning fossil fuel.

Nature Climate Science (NCS) said ``... the slowdown in sea level rise is due to natural variability in the climate and is not indicative of a slowdown in the effects of global warming.»

Rather, they will be able to claim that the new record is due to a natural cycle and that they had predicted the record years ago.

A larger part is due to natural variability.

This constant resorting to scare tactics of yours, is it due to a natural tendency to bully, or is there something else to it?

Exaggerated Natural vs Anthropogenic Zhou and Tung (2012) suggest that at least half the attributed anthropogenic global warming is due to natural trends.

yes, and I see that only 30 % believes that climate change is caused by greenhouse gasses, while 76 % think it is due to natural processes.

The robust response of temperature to CO2 eliminates the possibility that most warming of recent decades is due to natural variability.

His contention is that this is due to a natural multi-decadal oceanic oscillation that is in its warming phase, superposed on a natural 200 - year warming trend - rebound since the end of the Little Ice Age.

Fourth, the null hypothesis (that observed modern climate variation is due to natural causes) is NOT tested by those computer models.

or — if they want to claim this current lack of warming is due to natural variability, then the previous warming could also be due to natural variability — and that hurts them too!

Worse, 30 percent of teachers who teach climate change tell their students it is due to natural causes.

Is the rather definitive statement that «The increased activity since 1995 is due to natural fluctuations (and) cycles of hurricane activity driven by the Atlantic Ocean itself along with the atmosphere above it and not enhanced substantially by global warming» at all supportable?

«I'm pretty sure the severity of this thing is due to natural variability,» Seager told Gillis.

-- I calculated potential intensity trends over the period 1980 - 2012 & The disparity between the reanalysis potential intensity trends over the past 30 years and the projected trends over this century suggests either that most of the observed increase in potential intensity (and actual intensity of high category storms) is due to natural variability,....»

If you accept this some of the increase in Carbon Dioxide concentration is due to this natural phenomenon, claiming that all of the increase is man made ignores this fact supported by the same evidence used to support climate change.

I know you have to be cautious but isn't this a strong indication that the lower rate of surface and lower troposphere warming in recent years is due to natural unforced variability rather than climate forcings?