Sentences with phrase «of a warming climate rather»

The results — along with a recent Dartmouth - led study that found air temperature also likely influenced the fluctuating size of South America's Quelccaya Ice Cap over the past millennium — support many scientists» suspicions that today's tropical glaciers are rapidly shrinking primarily because of a warming climate rather than declining snowfall or other factors.

Not exact matches

«What this study addresses is what's better described as a false pause, or slowdown,» rather than a hiatus in warming, says climate scientist Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University, University Park.

According to some climate scientists, the cold in places like Florida actually could be a sign of warming, rather than an argument against the phenomenon.

«Rather striking» climate link to Australian heat waves Because temperature extremes are easier to decipher, scientists are fairly confident that global warming increased the severity and likelihood of extreme heat events in 2013 in Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Japan, China and Europe.

Global warming became big news for the first time during the hot summer of 1988 when now - retired NASA climate scientist James Hansen testified before Congress that the trend was not part of natural climate variation, but rather the result of emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses from human activities.

If martian canyons were gouged out only by rare floods rather than many millennia of slow seepage, Mars may have lacked the continually warm and wet climate needed for the origin and evolution of life.

``... From this we conclude that the elimination of carbon dioxide emissions leads to little or no further climate warming; that is, future warming is defined by the extent of future emissions, rather than by past emissions.»

The reconstruction produced by Dr. Mann and his colleagues was just one step in a long process of research, and it is not (as sometimes presented) a clinching argument for anthropogenic global warming, but rather one of many independent lines of research on global climate change.

Rather than experiencing wholesale destruction, many coral reefs will survive climate change by changing the mix of coral species as the ocean warms and becomes more acidic.

Differences in projections of warming by the end of the century appear to be related to assumptions made on emission trajectories and the ambitiousness of climate policies beyond 2030 rather than differences in methodology or climate modeling.

Did you not understand that clearcut land leads to greater erosion and severely reduces the number of trees that maximize the available moisture in a geographical area and improve the climate in a cooling rather than warming direction?

There is no real life proof that «races» differ in any meaningful way besides minor ecological and geographical adaptations and evolutionary differences like my long thin nose to pick a rather vulgar example, which clearly changed from my African forefathers due to their migration to colder climates, thus allowing the more efficient heating of the air inhaled, to avoid hypothermia with the minor drawback of restricting the flow of air and thus reducing the amount that can be inhaled compared to those in warmer lands.

Tossing away the Volt altogether would be a misstep in my eyes, especially as the climate for plug - in hybrids warms and consumers cozy up to the idea of plugging their vehicles in rather than simply filling the tank.

The data connection also allows the driver to connect with the vehicle remotely to monitor and schedule charging of the plug - in hybrid's battery pack, to monitor the vehicle's location or to remotely activate the climate controls to, for example, warm the cabin on a frigid morning, using power from the grid rather than the battery.

But I am very angry that the climate science community is «circuling the wagons» in defense, rather than trying to do an effective job of persuading people to act to combat global warming.

Greg Laden, who writes a spirited global warming blog, has published a rather biting critique of my approach to blogging and climate science.

Guemas et al. (Nature Climate Change 2013) shows that the slower warming of the last ten years can not be explained by a change in the radiative balance of our Earth, but rather by a change in the heat storage of the oceans, and that this can be at least partially reproduced by climate models, if one accounts for the natural fluctuations associated with El Niño in the initialization of the Climate Change 2013) shows that the slower warming of the last ten years can not be explained by a change in the radiative balance of our Earth, but rather by a change in the heat storage of the oceans, and that this can be at least partially reproduced by climate models, if one accounts for the natural fluctuations associated with El Niño in the initialization of the climate models, if one accounts for the natural fluctuations associated with El Niño in the initialization of the models.

And I'd rather deal with the problem of farming in a warmer climate than farming under attack by Martian death rays — which is as relevent as the possibility of a new ice age for the next 150 + years.

It's one thing to cave to a wave of naysaying climate rhetoric and build a new American energy conversation on points of agreement rather than clear ideological flash points like global warming.

Since OHC uptake efficiency associated with surface warming is low compared with the rate of radiative restoring (increase in energy loss to space as specified by the climate feedback parameter), an important internal contribution must lead to a loss rather than a gain of ocean heat; thus the observation of OHC increase requires a dominant role for external forcing.

I like this little dig at the denier - sceptic - contrarians who appear to be tree ring obsessed: «It is intriguing to note that the removal of tree - ring data from the proxy dataset yields less, rather than greater, peak cooling during the 16th — 19th centuries for both CPS and EIV methods... contradicting the claim... that tree - ring data are prone to yielding a warm - biased «Little Ice Age» relative to reconstructions using other high - resolution climate proxy indicators.»

I'd rather deal with the problems of farming in a warmer climate — including bugs and water shortages — than I would with the problems of farming under ice.

Off the coast of Washington we also see shifts in fish species for probably different reasons than the Bering Sea, i.e., warm waters moving north, rather than changes in primary production (but both likely related to anthropogenic climate change).

These generally show a postive feedback on CO2 levels in a warming climate, though the magnitude of the effect is rather uncertain.

As I noted in an update to a previous post, Greg Laden, who writes a spirited global warming blog, published a rather biting critique of my approach to blogging and climate science a few days ago.

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?

Furthermore, given that «global warming» doesn't mean that the whole world is simply going to get warmer (rather, climate changes will be complex), pointing out that civilizations in the past may not have been affected by warming is something of a red herring.

The» top ten» arguments employed by the relatively few deniers with credentials in any aspect of climate - change science (which arguments include «the sun is doing it», «Earth's climate was changing before there were people here», «climate is changing on Mars but there are no SUVs there», «the Earth hasn't been warming since 1998», «thermometer records showing heating are contaminated by the urban - heat - island effect», «satellite measurements show cooling rather than warming») have all been shown in the serious scientific literature to be wrong or irrelevant, but explaining their defects requires at least a paragraph or two for each one.

a) atmospheric CO2 from human activity is a major bause of observed warming in the 1980's and 1990's, c) that warming is overstated due to a number of factors including solar effects and measurement skew d) the data going back 150 years is of little reliability because it is clustered so heavily in northeast america and western europe rather than being global e) the global climate has been significantly shifting over the last thousand years, over the last ten thousand years, and over the last hundred thousand years; atmospheric CO2 levels did not drive those changes, and some of them were rapid.

If you do the same for 31 year averages, 32 year averages, 33 year averages, etc., on on through at least 70 year averages, you continue to find an indisputable trend of climate warming — even if you dismiss the land data as flawed because of the use of daily extremes rather than a more robust indication of the daily mean.

... we strongly support Delworth and Knutson's (2000) contention that this high - latitude warming event represents primarily natural variability within the climate system, rather than being caused primarily by external forcings, whether solar forcing alone (Thejll and Lassen, 2000) or a combination of increasing solar irradiance, increasing anthropogenic trace gases, and decreasing volcanic aerosols.

But as cogently interpreted by the physicist and climate expert Dr. Joseph Romm of the liberal Center for American Progress, «Latif has NOT predicted a cooling trend — or a «decades - long deep freeze» — but rather a short - time span where human - caused warming might be partly offset by ocean cycles, staying at current record levels, but then followed by «accelerated» warming where you catch up to the long - term human - caused trend.

As I've said on several occasions here and elsewhere, the major problem with global warming believers» enslavement to the «reposition global warming as theory rather than fact» phrase is that it is not in any way proof of an arrangement between between skeptics and industry officials involving payments made for false climate assessments.

Let me just quote Jones and Mann: «««Medieval Warm Period» and «Little Ice Age» are therefore restrictive terms, and their continued use in a more general context is increasingly likely to hamper, rather than aid, the description of past large - scale climate changes.

These folks prefer rather more exotic explanations that seek to deflect the blame away from the climate models and thus preserve their over-heated projections of future global warming.

Luntz advises use of the term «climate change» rather than «global warming,» which he says is more frightening.

Climate alarmism is not based on empirical observation; rather, it is entirely predicated on computer models that are manipulated to generate predictions of significant global warming as a result of increased concentrations of CO2.

In my prior piece about the spread of Ross Gelbspan's accusation that skeptic climate scientists are paid by the fossil fuel industry to «reposition global warming as theory rather than fact ``, I barely skimmed the surface of the sheer number of repetitions of it.

And I'm kinda of the old school which, rather unimaginatively favors strategic, long - range planning in the form of a multiplicity of potential futures — to include a world of possible, cold climate change along with a possible, warm climate change — especially when the planning horizon is more than 80 years out.

Even if all past warming were attributed to CO2 (a heroic acertion in and of itself) the temperature increases we have seen in the past imply a climate sensitivity closer to 1 rather than 3 or 5 or even 10 (I show this analysis in more depth in this video).

As Indur Goklany has shown, even assuming that the climate models on which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) accurately predict (rather than exaggerate by 2 to 3 times) the warming effect of added CO2 in the atmosphere, people the world over, and especially in developing countries, will be wealthier in warmer than in cooler scenarios, making them less vulnerable than today to all risks — including those related to cclimate models on which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) accurately predict (rather than exaggerate by 2 to 3 times) the warming effect of added CO2 in the atmosphere, people the world over, and especially in developing countries, will be wealthier in warmer than in cooler scenarios, making them less vulnerable than today to all risks — including those related to cClimate Change (IPCC) accurately predict (rather than exaggerate by 2 to 3 times) the warming effect of added CO2 in the atmosphere, people the world over, and especially in developing countries, will be wealthier in warmer than in cooler scenarios, making them less vulnerable than today to all risks — including those related to climateclimate.

By focusing on the consequences of climate change rather than its scientific causes, some experts suggest that Mr. Nash succeeded in circumventing a divisive political debate over global warming and the extent to which human activity contributes to it.

Their work seems, consistently, to be representative of their Global Warming denier board member Don Blankenship rather than members like Nike, who have issued strong statements about climate change.

Until then, count me among the skeptics who consider this a political rather than scientific issue, especially in light of the fact that it is believed that the Antarctic and arctic shelves are breaking from stress (from «overgrowth»), not due to heat, since they are larger than they have been during recorded history, and that when the alarmists are proven conclusively to be wrong, they change the terminology («global cooling» to «global warming» to «global climate change» - face it, the global climate always has been and always will be very dynamic).

The Russian Federation proposed «changing,» rather than warming of the climate system.

However, Kelly Sims Gallagher is not merely a coincidentally handy local Tufts University professor, she has direct connections with the same set of leaked industry memo phrases seen within the growing numbers of California global warming lawsuits — the «reposition global warming as theory rather than fact» strategy phrase and the «older, less - educated males» / «younger, lower - income women» targeting phrases — which are widely repeated elsewhere as proof that the fossil fuel industry «pays skeptic climate scientists to participate in misinformation campaigns» undermining the certainty of catastrophic man - caused global warming (despite those memos being worthless as evidence, but that is another matter).

Likewise, the American Natural Gas Alliance ($ 88 million) seems to work mainly on advertising and public - relations efforts to promote fracking or the use of natural gas rather than other fuels, and the group takes no obvious position on Global Warming / Climate Change.

The NY Times and Al Gore will not like this, but it is better to fight it out on the basis of the alarmists» invalid science rather than the moral wisdom of their alleged attempt to «save the world» from imaginary global warming / climate change due to human - caused CO2 emissions.

The lack of an increase in the rate of warming is therefore a major obstacle for a high sensitivity to CO2, and strongly supports the view that Climate Sensitivity to CO2 (if any at all) must be rather low.

To me one of the root causes for my position lies in the fact the ICCP is a group put together, funded and controlled by the United Nations (perhaps THE most politically motivated group on this planet) AND that their mandate was NOT to determine the causes for climate warming, but rather to prove that climate warming is a result of man's activities.