Sentences with phrase «on anthropogenic global warming in»

The peer - reviewed survey, «Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature,» was published today in the peer - reviewed Environmental Research Letters, a publication of the Institute of Physics (IOP).

There has been unexpected vehemence in response to Cook et al's paper Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature.

The paper, Cook et al. (2013)» Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature» searched...

Earlier this year, we submitted our paper, Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature, to the high - impact journal Environmental Research Letters (ERL).

Yesterday, we published a list of 24 errors in Tol's critique of our consensus paper Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature.

Reply to Comment on «Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature».

The required activity for that week involved reading the peer - reviewed paper authored by the Skeptical Science team, Quantifying the Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming in the Scientific Literature.

In our paper, Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature, we analysed over 12,000 papers listed in the «Web Of Science» between 1991 to 2011 matching the topic «global warming» or «global climate change».

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature.

Cook found a 97 % consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature on climate change.

Consequently, it comes as no surprise that our paper Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature has come under intense attack.

He also lead - authored the paper Quantifying the Consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature, which was tweeted by President Obama and was awarded the best paper published in Environmental Research Letters in 2013.

Our peer - reviewed paper Quantifying the Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming in the Scientific Literature is freely available at the Environmental Research Letters (ERL) website.

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature» by John Cook et al: 97 % of climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming.

I've just uploaded the ratings provided by the scientists who rated their own climate papers, published in our peer - reviewed paper «Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature».

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature — Abstract — Environmental Research Letters — IOPscience We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer - reviewed scientific literature, examining 11944 climate abstracts from 1991 — 2011 matching the topics «global climate change» or «global warming».

«Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature» - not just the * climate science * literature, any more than the IPCC reports are all about WG1.»

The publication of the paper that I co-authored, Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature, in May 2013 caused quite a splash.

A 2013 paper, «Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature,» examined «11,944 climate abstracts from 1991 — 2011» and found that «97.1 percent endorsed the consensus position,» while a parallel self - rating survey found that «97.2 percent endorsed the consensus.»

Not exact matches

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.

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.

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 warminOn 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 warminon 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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

In other words, a DO event (brought on this time by anthropogenic global warming) should be seen as larger and more rapid climate change than anthropogenic global warming.

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.

The theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming, in particular, is based on radiation physics.

The author shows this lack with his statement «For which, by the way, there is no natural explanation, and the best estimate for the anthropogenic share of global warming since 1950 is 110 percent — more on this in my previous post.»

For which, by the way, there is no natural explanation, and the best estimate for the anthropogenic share of global warming since 1950 is 110 percent — more on this in my previous post.

CAGW or Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is the acronym used (mostly by those that don't support taking immediate action on climate change) for the theory (or collection of hypotheses) that attribute most of the observed modern warming to human activities and warn that continuing similar activities (mostly emitting CO2) could result in warming that is dangerous to both civilization and a number of ecosWarming is the acronym used (mostly by those that don't support taking immediate action on climate change) for the theory (or collection of hypotheses) that attribute most of the observed modern warming to human activities and warn that continuing similar activities (mostly emitting CO2) could result in warming that is dangerous to both civilization and a number of ecoswarming to human activities and warn that continuing similar activities (mostly emitting CO2) could result in warming that is dangerous to both civilization and a number of ecoswarming that is dangerous to both civilization and a number of ecosystems.

THEN STEFAN SAYS EXACTLY WHAT THE PRESIDENT WAS INFERRING IN HIS PRESS CONFERENCE; and what has been repeatedly said already in the IPCC Reports: «While Pam and Haiyan, as well as other recent tropical cyclone disasters, can not be uniquely pinned on global warming, they have no doubt been influenced by natural and anthropogenic climate change and they do remind us of our continuing vulnerability to such storms.&raquIN HIS PRESS CONFERENCE; and what has been repeatedly said already in the IPCC Reports: «While Pam and Haiyan, as well as other recent tropical cyclone disasters, can not be uniquely pinned on global warming, they have no doubt been influenced by natural and anthropogenic climate change and they do remind us of our continuing vulnerability to such storms.&raquin the IPCC Reports: «While Pam and Haiyan, as well as other recent tropical cyclone disasters, can not be uniquely pinned on global warming, they have no doubt been influenced by natural and anthropogenic climate change and they do remind us of our continuing vulnerability to such storms.»

So it extremely behooves us to reduce our GHG emissions very drastically very quickly... just in case the solar output starts increasing, adding heat on top of our anthropogenic global warming.

Brian, I'd recommend that you run the talking points through a reality check before attaching your name to them — one excellent resource is skepticalscience.com, from whence (after.1 second of effort) I reached the rebuttal to «Scientists predicted an impending ice age in the 1970's» («Is it really appropriate to compare the scientific evidence for an impending ice age in the 70's to the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming today?»

Sadly, in recent years we have become accustomed to a ritual in which the publication of each new result on anthropogenic climate change is greeted by a flurry of activity from industry - funded lobby groups, think tanks and PR professionals, who try to discredit the science and confuse the public about global warming.

The discussion has centered on a new study reviewing how anthropogenic global warming was characterized in more than 12,000 climate science papers between 1991 and 2011.

A paper by John Cook and colleagues published in May 2013 claimed that of the 4,000 peer - reviewed papers they surveyed expressing a position on anthropogenic global warming, «97.1 % endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming».

In both my personal experience of peer review and in discussions with medical colleagues on this subject, I know — and, boy, BillD really ought to know — how the peer review process can get screwed up by the sorts of concerted and deliberately deceptive measures practiced by the anthropogenic global warming cabal that was cataclysmically de-pantsed by the Climategate revelations, particularly with regard to the insights provided by the e-mails of the C.R.U. correspondentIn both my personal experience of peer review and in discussions with medical colleagues on this subject, I know — and, boy, BillD really ought to know — how the peer review process can get screwed up by the sorts of concerted and deliberately deceptive measures practiced by the anthropogenic global warming cabal that was cataclysmically de-pantsed by the Climategate revelations, particularly with regard to the insights provided by the e-mails of the C.R.U. correspondentin discussions with medical colleagues on this subject, I know — and, boy, BillD really ought to know — how the peer review process can get screwed up by the sorts of concerted and deliberately deceptive measures practiced by the anthropogenic global warming cabal that was cataclysmically de-pantsed by the Climategate revelations, particularly with regard to the insights provided by the e-mails of the C.R.U. correspondents.

In a recent article in Skeptical Inquirer, geologist and writer James Lawrence Powell, claims that there is a 99.99 % scientific consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGWIn a recent article in Skeptical Inquirer, geologist and writer James Lawrence Powell, claims that there is a 99.99 % scientific consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGWin Skeptical Inquirer, geologist and writer James Lawrence Powell, claims that there is a 99.99 % scientific consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).

So you answer that «the climate system is profoundly complex with various feedbacks and time lags that come into play, and can not be explained in term's of someone's simplistic expectations,» as an answer on the question why «this melting really was an indicator of Anthropogenic Global Warming»?

Would anybody else reading on this thread care to clue him in about how many people in «climatology» and the allied sciences must be said (to paraphrase Kipling) «to have been shown the way to promotion and pay» through their allegiance to the anthropogenic global warming fraud?

Through their statement on climate change, Buddhist leaders have crossed this boundary into an area in which, it seems to me, they lack knowledge both of the alleged problems of anthropogenic global warming and of the best policies that might be adopted to deal with an always uncertain future.

Such a report must refrain from ignoring basic scientific practices, as the SPM authors blatantly do when claiming to be able to quantify with high precision their confidence in the impact of anthropogenic C02 emissions on global warming.

2) In addition to estimates of climate sensitivity, there are other lines of evidence showing that anthropogenic activity (predominately increased CO2) caused most of the recent global warming; this provides further credence for the > = 95 % certainty on the attribution point.

More Scientific Evidence For CO2's Dubious Climate Impact Emerges Image Source: Robertson and Chilingar, 2017 According to the most basic precepts of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), variations in CO2 concentrations exert significant control on sea surface temperatures, glaciers, sea levels, and generalized climate dynamics (i.e., precipitation patterns).

Observational records show that anthropogenic - influenced climate change has already had a profound impact on global and U.S. warm season climate over the past 30 years, and there is increasing contrast between geographic regions that are climatologically wet and dry - the hypothesis that the «wet gets wetter, dry gets drier» is seen in a new paper by Chang et al..