Sentences with phrase «mean anthropogenic global warming»

I think you mean anthropogenic global warming, don't you?

The (formerly respected) scientific journal Nature chimed in and announced in an (Oct. 26) editorial [i] that any results confirming «climate change» (meaning anthropogenic global warming — AGW) are welcome, even when released before peer review.

Not exact matches

That means that a climate with a lot of CO2 warming partially offset in the global average by a lot of regional aerosol cooling is still a very different climate than one with no anthropogenic aerosols and less CO2.

Contemporary global mean sea level rise will continue over many centuries as a consequence of anthropogenic climate warming, with the detailed pace and final amount of rise depending substantially on future greenhouse gas emissions.

Let me rephrase the question: what is the most commonly accepted definition of the «C» part of CAGW, if the remaining three letters mean «Anthropogenic Global Warming»?

Assuming a climate sensitivity of 0.7 K / W / m ^ 2, this would contribute less than 0.06 C of the estimated 0.6 C mean global warming between the Maunder Minimum and the middle of last century, before significant anthropogenic contributions could be involved.»

What that sciencey - sounding gibberish about «unproved variables» means is that you don't want to see trillions of dollars in wealth shift from the fossil fuel corporations to other sectors of the industrial economy, therefore, anthropogenic global warming can not be true.

Yu Kosaka & Shang - Ping Xie, as published in Nature (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v501/n7467/full/nature12534.html): «Despite the continued increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, the annual - mean global temperature has not risen in the twenty - first century1, challenging the prevailing view that anthropogenic forcing causes climate warming.»

Suppose that the science is not settled (whatever that means), how does it follow that «It is probable that the case for anthropogenic warming will not hold up» If you don't know enough to claim that global warming is real, then how can you know enough to claim that AWG won't hold up?

«Since the AR4, there is some new limited direct evidence for an anthropogenic influence on extreme precipitation, including a formal detection and attribution study and indirect evidence that extreme precipitation would be expected to have increased given the evidence of anthropogenic influence on various aspects of the global hydrological cycle and high confidence that the intensity of extreme precipitation events will increase with warming, at a rate well exceeding that of the mean precipitation..

Anthropogenic global warming (AGW), a recent warming of the Earth's lower atmosphere as evidenced by the global mean temperature anomaly trend [11], is BELIEVED to be the result of an «enhanced greenhouse effect» mainly due to human - produced increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere [12] and changes in the use of land [13].

So, if «all else» is not materially affected, theory has it that Katrina say was made 5 % stronger or so, but «all else» may also mean that actually anthropogenic global warming has made it say 15 % stronger or 5 % weaker.

• 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.

By comparing modelled and observed changes in such indices, which include the global mean surface temperature, the land - ocean temperature contrast, the temperature contrast between the NH and SH, the mean magnitude of the annual cycle in temperature over land and the mean meridional temperature gradient in the NH mid-latitudes, Braganza et al. (2004) estimate that anthropogenic forcing accounts for almost all of the warming observed between 1946 and 1995 whereas warming between 1896 and 1945 is explained by a combination of anthropogenic and natural forcing and internal variability.

Anthropogenic global warming needs to be kicked into a much higher gear than 0.5 W / m2 at TOA because that means it will take 400 years to reach the dreaded 2.0 C of global warming acknowledged by warmists as the point where upsides of CO2 are outweighed by downsides.

Contemporary global mean sea level rise will continue over many centuries as a consequence of anthropogenic climate warming, with the detailed pace and final amount of rise depending substantially on future greenhouse gas emissions.

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.

I understand the more subtle aspect of global warming means more hot days and more cold winters from time to time, but there are two main things that make we wonder about the veracity of the Anthropogenic Global Warming global warming means more hot days and more cold winters from time to time, but there are two main things that make we wonder about the veracity of the Anthropogenic Global Warmingwarming means more hot days and more cold winters from time to time, but there are two main things that make we wonder about the veracity of the Anthropogenic Global Warming Global WarmingWarming group.

These operate as «meme» s. For example (where «- >» = «means»): Sustainability - > Climate Change - > Global Warming - > Anthropogenic Global Warming - > Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming - > CO2 - > Fossil Fuels - > Bad Energy I wonder: why it has always been CO2 that needs to be controlled?

Judith Curry writes: «If the term «global warming has stopped» is inferred to mean that there is no longer evidence of anthropogenic greenhouse warming, then this is not correct.»

Dear Judith, you state in your conclusions,» If the term «global warming has stopped» is inferred to mean that there is no longer evidence of anthropogenic greenhouse warming, then this is not correct».

It is classic misdirection, a propaganda technique, which means that there is something other than «anthropogenic global warming» in the oil industry's agenda..

However, this doesn't mean that CO2 based Anthropogenic Global Warming began in 1950, because if you look at the Met Office — Hadley Center HadCRUT4 Global Surface Temperature record for the last 163 years you can see that temperatures didn't warm during the 1950s, nor the 60s:

If he did not intend that paragraph to mean that all global warming is attributable to anthropogenic causes, then it is just poor writing, and he should say so.

In the Comment by Nuccitelli et al., they make many false and invalid criticisms of the CFC - warming theory in my recent paper, and claim that their anthropogenic forcings including CO2 would provide a better explanation of the observed global mean surface temperature (GMST) data over the past 50 years.

Answer: Is this supposed to mean the theory of anthropogenic global warming must be wrong?

To bear primary responsibility means to have been exposed to the overwhelming scientific data and analysis on anthropogenic global warming and willfully and misleadingly denied or acted in ignorance of that consensus.

Any reduction in global mean near - surface temperature due to a future decline in solar activity is likely to be a small fraction of projected anthropogenic warming.

Williams et al., 2017 (DOI: 10.1002 / 2017GL073138) «The warming trend post-1850s in the SST reconstruction (0.8 ± 0.16 °C, 1s) is consistent with global mean warming of 0.85 ± 0.21 °C (1s) from 1880 to 2012 (Figure 4b, c), attributed largely to anthropogenic causes -LSB-...].

«Combining the evidence from ocean warming and mass loss of glaciers we conclude that it is very likely that there is a substantial contribution from anthropogenic forcing to the global mean sea level rise since the 1970s.»

IPCC has stated (AR4 WG1 Ch.9) that the «global mean warming observed since 1970 can only be reproduced when models are forced with combinations of external forcings that include anthropogenic forcings... Therefore modeling studies suggest that late 20th - century warming is much more likely to be anthropogenic than natural in origin...» whereas for the statistically indistinguishable early 20thC warming period «detection and attribution as well as modeling studies indicate more uncertainty regarding the causes of early 20th - century warming.»

In other words, under solar or anthropogenic influence the changes in mean climate values, such as the global temperature, are less important than increased duration of certain climate patterns associated say with cold conditions in some regions and warm conditions in the other regions

Climate simulations are consistent in showing that the global mean warming observed since 1970 can only be reproduced when models are forced with combinations of external forcings that include anthropogenic forcings (Figure 9.5).

I will use anthropogenic global warming, or AGW, to mean the theory that man is causing some or all of the current warming.

Anthropogenic and natural external forcing combined are estimated to have caused 0.93 °C [0.61 - 1.24], consistent with the observed global land mean warming 1.09 °C [0.86 - 1.31

In contrast to global mean temperature the «attributable anthropogenic warming» index is not subject to high year to year and decadal variability.

I mean if, as Nurse is now suggesting, the scientific mainstream understanding of global warming is that it's happening but that it's open to debate how significant it is then doesn't this completely contradict pretty much everything he, the Royal Society, and its two previous presidents Lords Rees and May have been doing this last decade or more to stoke up the Anthropogenic Global Warming scare for all they're global warming is that it's happening but that it's open to debate how significant it is then doesn't this completely contradict pretty much everything he, the Royal Society, and its two previous presidents Lords Rees and May have been doing this last decade or more to stoke up the Anthropogenic Global Warming scare for all they'rewarming is that it's happening but that it's open to debate how significant it is then doesn't this completely contradict pretty much everything he, the Royal Society, and its two previous presidents Lords Rees and May have been doing this last decade or more to stoke up the Anthropogenic Global Warming scare for all they're Global Warming scare for all they'reWarming scare for all they're worth?

Anthropogenic global warming (AGW), a recent warming of the Earth's lower atmosphere as evidenced by the global mean temperature anomaly trend [9], is believed to be the result of an «enhanced greenhouse effect» mainly due to human - produced increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere [10] and changes in the use of land [11]..

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.

The Earth is not now as warm as it was during the Holocene Climate Optimum, so one could say that to date there is no evidence that anthropogenic CO2 has raised the global mean temperature above its cyclic maximum.

Does this mean that we can now call it «The Theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming» or «Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory»?

I do not mean to use the term «denier» pejoratively — it has been accepted by some of the group as a self - description — but simply to designate those who deny any likelihood of future danger from anthropogenic global warming.

First, it's incorrect to call this preposterous bogosity «the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis,» inasmuch as the term «hypothesis» has a specific technical meaning in scientific usage, which is summarized in physicist Jeff Glassman's brief layman - accessible article «Conjecture, Hypothesis, Theory, Law.

Unless putting «global warming» in quotes was meant to really mean «anthropogenic global warming».

Indeed, our results show that even in the absence of trends in mean precipitation — or trends in the occurrence of extremely low - precipitation events — the risk of severe drought in California has already increased due to extremely warm conditions induced by anthropogenic global warming.

Climate models only reproduce the observed 20th century global mean surface warming when both anthropogenic and natural forcings are included (Figure 9.5).

The least - squares linear - regression trend on the RSS satellite monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly dataset continues to show no global warming for 18 years 9 months since February 1997, though one - third of all anthropogenic forcings have occurred during the period of the Pause.

On page 3 Postma states that anthropogenic global warming means a general warming of the atmosphere theorized to be human emission of carbon dioxide (CO2), which is then theorized to cause a strengthening of the effect of the Greenhouse Theory, which actually causes said warming.

The net effect of the remodelling is to create statistically significant warming of 0.7 °C in the ACORN - SAT mean temperature series for Rutherglen: in general agreement with anthropogenic global warming theory.

Does that mean, since I see evidence for a global warming in the last 100 years and also an anthropogenic influence, that I am in the «apocalyptic half» of this study, beside the fact, that I am indeed very skeptical of the predictions for our future as given in the IPCC - reports?