Sentences with phrase «physical warming based»

If you subtract the calculated expected physical warming based on the current attribution analysis would the climate system be expected to produce the same number of heat records as are now occurring on trend?

Not exact matches

Developed by Carolyn Ferguson, a highly experienced and qualified Iyengar yoga teacher based in South Manchester, iYoga sessions provide a warm, friendly and safe environment in which to improve your health, physical and emotional wellbeing.

Based on physical modelling taking into account measured and astrophysically plausible variations in solar spectral luminosity, and on consistent physical models of the response of he climate system to solar forcing, you can't explain away the 20th / 21st net warming trend with solar effects.

Therefore, in order to come up with an alternative explanation, one has to simultaneously show why GHGs are not causing the warming they would be expected to based on physical principles, and at the same time come up with a natural source of temperature change that can match the magnitude and patterns of the observed change.

The point should be obvious: if global warming is based on solid physical theories, then you have to discredit those theories if you want to preserve your «skeptical stance» — and that isn't possible.

If there are no physical or pragmatic grounds for choosing one over another, and one increases while the other decreases, there is no basis for concluding that the atmosphere as a whole is either warming or cooling.

Can anyone here cogently explain the physical basis for the prediction that warming from CO2 would increase the frequency or strength of hurricanes?

a) the premise that AGW has been the principal cause of 20th century warming (and thus represents a serious potential threat) has not been validated by empirical data based on physical observations or reproducible experimentation

On the contrary it is based on the time required to warm the oceanic mixed layer, which is an entirely physical phenomenon.

There's no physical basis to believe that warming would increase drought.

The surface warming is also consistent with the many physical indicators, and the observed amount of warming is consistent with the expected range of climate sensitivity, which itself is based upon many different lines of evidence.

Blaming global warming on the movements of other planets is little more than «climastrology» and curve fitting without a physical basis.

Clearly, as the critics point out, this revision is not based on any known physical science principles, nor on any new empirical evidence, but instead on a political agenda that demands «scientists» find more global warming, pronto, for the Paris 2015 climate elite bureaucrats hookup extravaganza.

This mantra has been widely misunderstood and misapplied, but was the first and perhaps still the only systematic conclusion about regional precipitation and global warming based on robust physical understanding of the atmosphere.

The Physical Science Basis, Cambridge, 996 pp, 2007), climate models project a fast rate of southwestern warming accompanied by devastating droughts (Seager et al. in Science 316:1181 — 1184, 2007; Williams et al. in Nat Clim Chang, 2012).

They then summarize evidence showing disagreement, identify four reasons why scientists disagree about global warming, and then provide a detailed survey of the physical science of global warming based on the authors» previous work.

Show me the empirical data, based on real - time physical observations or reproducible experimentation (NOT climate model runs), which support the premise that GH warming requires decades or even centuries to reach «equilibrium».

The assembled panel issued the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report entitled «The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policy Makers» that concludes that global average temperature will rise between 1.1 °C to 6.4 °C by 2100, and that it is «very likely» (90 % certainty) that human activities and emissions are causing global warming.

Eminent scientists who queried the IPCC line — which is based on models rather than clear understanding of the underlying physical mechanisms — and eminent economists and statisticians who argued that the case for net costs from any warming had never been demonstrated — were vilified.

The process should start with a validation (with empirical data based on physical observations or reproducible experimentation) of the model - based hypothesis that AGW has been the primary cause of past warming and represents a serious threat to humanity and our environment.

My impression is it will be easier to predict the changes in the «amount of cold and warm» then the distribution of it for a given external forcing, though I'd like confirmation on that (although if I took the time I might be able to justify that view based on some physical arguments, maybe?)

However, based on known physical laws, we can predict with a great deal of confidence that if greenhouse gases continue to increase we will arrive at a specific address — a warmer world.

In comparing human - caused and natural «radiative forcing,» (which is defined as «an index of the importance of [a] factor as a potential climate change mechanism»), the IPCC's February 2007 Working Group I Report «The Physical Science Basis» concluded that since 1750, «it is extremely likely [> 95 % probability] that humans have exerted a substantial warming influence on climate.