Sentences with phrase «of current warming»

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?

We've long known that manmade activity was likely the leading cause of our current warming and climate change.

As long as climatology can't account numerically for the large natural fluctuations that obviously dominated climate change prior to 1950, we can not say what proportion of the current warming is of human origin.

Just a note: If you look at Nassif's other «work» you'll see him calculate that the cosmic flux measured by the Pioneer probes (IIRC) correlates with the temperature record and this «proves» that GCR is the cause of current warming.

They are all real possibilities, but have been discarded by scientists who looked at the evidence and concluded that they were not the causes of the current warming of the thin atmosphere of our planet.

I don't have the final answer about whether 30 %, 10 %, or -10 % of the current warming is due to solar.

What seems to be the break between scientists and the average person is that the average person believes that 100 % of the current warming trend is man made (as if the Earth has never gone through one before).

RE: # 1 I think that Richard Sycamore has asked some key questions — «is it not possible that a large portion of the current warming trend is a product of internal climate variability» and «how it is you decide that GHGs are responsible for a deterministic forced trend».

Given the strength of the Hurst coefficients — something we all agree on — is it not possible that a large portion of the current warming trend is a product of internal climate variability, as mediated by complex dynamics of ocean circulation?

Shows both the range of the proxies, and the context of the current warming.

, many would say «not much», some would say «It's a bigger risk because it implies sensitivity is higher», some would say «It's a smaller risk because it implies that more of current warming may be variability».

And if the climate is currently warming, and we can (and have) eliminated other possible causes for that change, then human produced greenhouse gasses are the most likely cause of our current warming.

If you want to base your entire analysis based on a data set that shows the most warming 1950 - 2000 and ignore the problems... lack of current warming and possibly overcorrected data in the 1940s, I find it illogical to claim that there is 95 % certainty that TCR is that high.

The threshold for inclusion was at least 8 million tonnes of carbon (MtC) produced in a recent year, which focused attention on a manageable number of entities and highlighted those companies responsible for most of the current warming.

There are multiple lines of evidence that point us to the origin of our current warming:

«[D] espite good evidence that global temperatures are rising and that CO2 can act as a greenhouse gas and help to warm the Earth, we are a long way from attributing all or much of current warming to man - made CO2.»

However they fail to address the question of the source of the current warming trend.

He later added: What he has shown is that the phasing of these natural cycles is such that they constructively interfere in recent times to produce at least a substantial portion of our current warming cycle.

If the AMO is responsible for all or most of the current warming period that has taken place since the 1970's, then that is proof that the activities of mankind have had little to no impact on the Earth's climate and CO2 has not been a factor.

Ultimately for me as a non expert, I haven't seen any convincing explanation to explain why the paleo record (which shows a warmer arctic and no corresponding large methane release) isn't a good analogue of the current warming trend in the arctic.

It is faithfully reported as 66 % of climate scientists practicing in the field who believe half or more of the current warming is caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases.

What he has shown is that the phasing of these natural cycles is such that they constructively interfere in recent times to produce at least a substantial portion of our current warming cycle.

Bart says: June 8, 2010 at 11:20 am What he has shown is that the phasing of these natural cycles is such that they constructively interfere in recent times to produce at least a substantial portion of our current warming cycle.

But the planet IS warming and we ARE the source of the current warming.

The study, published in Nature Geoscience found that humans have caused at least three - quarters (74 percent) of current warming, while also determining that warming has actually been slowed down by atmospheric aerosols, including some pollutants, which reflect sunlight back into space.

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

This paper will show that despite good evidence that global temperatures are rising and that CO2 can act as a greenhouse gas and help to warm the Earth, we are a long way from attributing all or much of current warming to man - made CO2.

Methane is a very powerful greenhouse gas, accounting for about 18 percent of the current warming.

This is also true of the current warming trend — an increase in carbon dioxide is leading to an increase in temperatures.

It's POSSIBLE that changes in the spectrum (increases in the visible and infrared wavelengths between 2004 and 2007) may account for SOME of the current warming.

All these are dealt with and excluded with high degrees of certainty by IPCC as full explanations of current warming, leaving CO2 emissions as the main smoking gun.

HOW MUCH OF CURRENT WARMING IS DUE TO HUMAN ACTIVITY?

Professor John Christy, an atmospheric scientist from the University of Huntsville in Alabama, said just a quarter of the current warming is caused by man made emissions.

The logic behind attribution of current warming to well - mixed man - made greenhouse gases is faulty.

Moreover, it would also settle the «uniqueness» of the current warming period multiple ways, and might even find recurring cyclic patterns if there really are any.

If you really try to argue that something can't be the driver of the current warming (not world climate) because of the small concentration, you've already lost the argument.

There are numerous evidential lines of causation of the current warming, pointing to human activity.

Internal variability has always been superimposed on top of global surface temperature trends, but the magnitude - as well as the fingerprints - of current warming clearly indicates that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are the dominant factor.

This is based on Schurer's 5th - 95th percentile range of current warming relative to the late - 1800s, using the Cowtan and Way temperature record corrected for the difference between sea surface temperature and surface air temperature warming rates.

CO2 is only credited with «about half» of the pre-industrial warming and not all of the current warming.

No one mentioned the El Nino as a cause of current warming.

While international teams of scientists agreed long ago that human activity is the primary cause of current warming, members of the public and some politicians have been slow to embrace the findings.

What percentage of the current warming can be attributed to increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?

Climate science is telling us that CO2 from human activity is the cause of the current warming trend and it's a serious problem.

Nights Aren't Cooling As Much As They Used To Interestingly, the study also found that part of the reason for the 2:1 ratio can be attributed to comparatively smaller numbers of record lows than huge numbers of record highs — indicating that much of current warming is occurring at night, something which is «consistent with years of climate model research.»

Also noted is that in the 10,000 years of the current warming cycles there have beem 16 to 18 200 to 300 year periods when the temperature rose of fell by 1 to 1.5 degrees.

In fact, only warming by an enhanced greenhouse effect will warm nights more than day, polar regions (and especially the arctic *) more than tropical regions, and cool the stratosphere while warming the troposphere — all of which are features of the current warming.

If it shows a fraction of the current warming, well, then that is interesting too.

The point is that there is zero evidence of an alternative cause of the current warming.

That, and the destabilized structures in the arctic from the melting permafrost demonstrate that the «cost» side of the current warming trend is already occurring and making people's lives more difficult, especially those who are losing their homes.