Sentences with phrase «of anthropogenic global warming in»

Hansen et al., 2016 «[W] e found that there is (yet) no observable sea - level effect of anthropogenic global warming in the world's best recorded region.»

Not exact matches

Not believing that anthropogenic global warming is happening despite a mountain of empirical evidence to the contrary because of what was written in a book a very long time ago.

First, a study published in 2016 showed that during «2013 and 2014, only 4 of 69,406 authors of peer - reviewed articles on global warming, 0.0058 percent or 1 in 17,352, rejected» anthropogenic global warming.

Its appeal is complex, drawing on belief in anthropogenic global warming and trust in the «scientific consensus» behind it; the Great Recession and a protective reaction to rapid social change; a basic need for the concrete, local, and personal; the waning of religious observance; peer pressure, star power, money, and more.

In «Consilience and Consensus» [Skeptic], Michael Shermer's arguments demonstrate how deniers of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) are wrong.

That's an incredibly aggressive goal but one some scientists say is the only way that the world can avert global warming of more than 2 °C — the European Union has determined that's a prudent limit to «avoid dangerous anthropogenic warming,» in the United Nations parlance.

[The studies] have said the chances of observing such extreme Australian temperatures in a world without anthropogenic global warming is almost impossible.»

In so far as some sceptics and deniers are proclaiming that carbon dioxide - induced anthropogenic global warming may be «the scientific fraud of the century» then surely the issues surrounding it must be the scientific debate of the century.

This is an attitude that some sincere climate change «skeptics» (as opposed to ExxonMobil - funded deliberate frauds) exhibit: their so - called «skepticism» arises from an a priori sense that human activities can not possibly affect the Earth system in the way that the theory of anthropogenic global warming describes.

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.

In other words, global warming is an indirect consequence of anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

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.

While the outlook for reefs in the fact of today's rapid global warming is exceptionally serious, the authors provide remedial options for management interventions that will increase reef resilience, including: a) reduce the harvest of herbivorous fish to sustainable levels, b) protect sharks and other top predators, c) manage all aspects of water quality, and d) diminish direct anthropogenic impacts and stressors.

For example, the borehole data show warming since about 1500 AD which clearly was not anthropogenic, and in the latest decade, since the very warm 1998, the temperature trend is downward even in the Hadley Center compilations; the most ardent supporters of anthropogenic global warming.

These analyses, whilst not disproving the anthropogenic global warming theory, do show that the climate we are in today is not unusual in recent history, and therefore the possibility of natural variability causing the warming can not be ruled out, as it seemingly has been by many «independent» scientists, and the IPCC.

I think your discussion about anthropogenic global warming is a little «off topic» in this blog entry, which is about due diligence in climate science, but with the permission of those running the blog, I'd like to explore it a little further.

On October 12, 2007, former U.S. Vice President Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) won the Nobel Peace Prize in recognition of their efforts to bring attention to the issue of anthropogenic (man - made) global warming.

The mechanism for reducing anthropogenic global warming, initiated through radiative forcing of greenhouse gases, is to stop emissions and reduce their concentration in the atmosphere to levels which do not stimulate carbon feedbacks.

Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are presently increasing every year at an accelerating rate, and it is extremely unlikely that humanity will collectively do what is necessary to not only stop that growth in CO2 emissions, but reverse it, and then reduce emissions by 80 percent or more within 5 to 10 years, which is what mainstream climate scientists say is needed to avoid the worst outcomes of anthropogenic glAnthropogenic CO2 emissions are presently increasing every year at an accelerating rate, and it is extremely unlikely that humanity will collectively do what is necessary to not only stop that growth in CO2 emissions, but reverse it, and then reduce emissions by 80 percent or more within 5 to 10 years, which is what mainstream climate scientists say is needed to avoid the worst outcomes of anthropogenic glanthropogenic global warming.

Leaps of faith are perhaps acceptable in some theory of risk taking, but not when the huge global consequences for remediation of elusive «anthropogenic global warming» are pitted against them.

You can be certain that various anti-science, anthropogenic global warming denialist web blogs and op ed writers (with no scientific background) will take this study and trumpet it from the hills, completely out of context in order to continue to be disingenuous and to purposely mislead people.

These time scales are within the lifetime of anthropogenic CO2, and thus these feedbacks must be considered in estimating the dangerous level of global warming.

Third, with our ∼ 1 °C scenario it is more likely that the biosphere and soil will be able to sequester a substantial portion of the anthropogenic fossil fuel CO2 carbon than in the case of 2 °C or more global warming.

Figure 3 is a similar graphic to that presented in Meehl et al. (2004), comparing the average global surface warming simulated by the model using natural forcings only (blue), anthropogenic forcings only (red), and the combination of the two (gray).

There is no evidence whatsoever that «politics» in any way, shape or form has influenced actual climate science, or its overwhelming conclusions regarding both the reality of anthropogenic global warming and the danger that it poses to humanity and to life on earth in general.

«It is thus extremely likely (> 95 % probability) that the greenhouse gas induced warming since the mid-twentieth century was larger than the observed rise in global average temperatures, and extremely likely that anthropogenic forcings were by far the dominant cause of warming.

What, specifically, is the reason that you are «skeptical» of the conclusions of the overwhelming majority of the world's climate scientists and every relevant scientific organization in the world, including the national science academies of every major country in the world, that anthropogenic global warming is a reality?

Many parents have long objected to what is being taught in schools — from belief in an anthropogenic global warming catastrophe to banning acknowledgment of American exceptionalism — but fearing the power of teachers to hurt their children's futures, parents keep their mouths shut.

This is an attitude that some sincere climate change «skeptics» (as opposed to ExxonMobil - funded deliberate frauds) exhibit: their so - called «skepticism» arises from an a priori sense that human activities can not possibly affect the Earth system in the way that the theory of anthropogenic global warming describes.

Night gaunt, # 66 «I don't believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) anymore than I believe in the theory of Evolution.

Quoting directly Climate change as a result of human activities, or anthropogenic global warming, is now generally accepted as reality and includes a wide range of climatic processes and impacts in the global system that are affected by human activities.

The skeptics» press, especially as echoed in Crichton's State of Fear states that the Kilimanjaro retreat can have nothing to do with anthropogenic global warming, because it began in the 1880's, before any appreciable CO2 response is expected.

However, the thing you have to understand is that what he gets through peer - review is far less threatening to the mainstream picture of anthropogenic global warming than you'd think from the spin he puts on it in press releases, presentations and the blogosphere.

Three IPCC climate models, recent NASA Aqua satellite data, and a simple 3 - layer climate model are used together to demonstrate that the IPCC climate models are far too sensitive, resulting in their prediction of too much global warming in response to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.

This is similar to how the denier claims of no global warming, or of no anthropogenic influence upon warming, or of low climate sensitivity, depend on all observational data being wrong in the same direction.

Given that the trend in global SSTs has been attributed to increases in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (17 — 19), it follows that the best explanation for this ecosystem aberration is anthropogenic warming that has passed a threshold of natural variability.

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.

The true motivation underlying the global warming movement is almost certainly ideological and political in nature, and I predict that anthropogenic Global Warming, as currently presented, will go down as the greatest fraud of allglobal warming movement is almost certainly ideological and political in nature, and I predict that anthropogenic Global Warming, as currently presented, will go down as the greatest fraud of alwarming movement is almost certainly ideological and political in nature, and I predict that anthropogenic Global Warming, as currently presented, will go down as the greatest fraud of allGlobal Warming, as currently presented, will go down as the greatest fraud of alWarming, as currently presented, will go down as the greatest fraud of all time.

Item 8 could be confusing in having so many messages: «It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas... The best estimate of the human - induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period....

It's clear this is already happening and we can expect more op - eds in major newspapers from the likes of George Will, more full - page adverts from industry - funded propaganda mills masquerading as «conservative» think tanks, and more comments posted on every blog where global warming is discussed, denouncing the «vast liberal hoax» of anthropogenic global warming, because, you know, it's been proved that the earth isn't warming, and if it is, it has nothing to do with fossil fuels.

As on the Peninsula, there is evidence of anthropogenic forcing for the WAIS too: anomalous conditions since the 1980s in the tropical Pacific are characteristic of the expected fingerprint of global warming (e.g. Trenberth and Hoar, 1997; Collins et al., 2010).

Conclusion The cause of both global warming and increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is solar, not anthropogenic.

All of these observations match the response, predicted in the late 1970s by glaciologist John Mercer, of the Antarctic to anthropogenic global warming.

Finally, given the limitations of climate science (one Earth and all) they should describe what they would consider convincing evidence in favor of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis.

Joe Bastardi, senior AccuWeather.com meteorologist's open letter to presidential candidates concerning anthropogenic global warming will likely be thoroughly ignored by media far more interested in spreading the unproven junk science of Nobel Laureate Al Gore than advancing the discussion concerning this controversial issue.

Secondly, while there are indeed lots of other unsustainable human impacts on ecosystems and the Earth's biosphere generally, the rapidly escalating effects of anthropogenic global warming threaten to overwhelm all of those other problems in the very near future, with devastating impacts not only for human civilization and the human species, but for all life on Earth, for a long, long time.

Even NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies — long the nation's most ardent champion of anthropogenic global warming — is getting in on the act.

But more generally, something I've wondered is: while in the global annual average, aerosols could be said to partly cancel (net effect) the warming from anthropogenic greenhouse forcing, the circulatory, latitudinal, regional, seasonal, diurnal, and internal variability changes would be some combination of reduced changes from reduced AGW + some other changes related to aerosol forcing.

The observed warming is likely the result of a combined effect: data strongly suggest that the AMO has been in a warming phase for the past two or three decades, and we also know that at the same time anthropogenic global warming is ongoing.

I was also under the impression that the IPCC had concluded that the global warming recorded in the first half of the 20th century was mostly «natural» and the warming observed in the second half of the 20th century (starting in 1975) was mostly «anthropogenic».