Sentences with phrase «recent anthropogenic global warming»

Not exact matches

Recent studies of global warming have necessitated a more comprehensive effort to quantify the natural climate variability so that the residual change may be attributed to the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases.

The editors have perfected the art of specious framing of the scientific question, which is not about climate change, but is about anthropogenic global warming as a (major) contributor to current and recent climate change.

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.

The recent «Swindle» film illustrates that it is impossible to fundamentally question anthropogenic global warming without resorting to manipulated graphs, distortions and omissions of facts and debating tricks that exploit the lack of background knowledge of the lay audience.

When faced with a choice between a) and b), I respond: «I can't choose, since i think the most likely split between natural and anthropogenic causes to recent global warming is about 50 - 50 ′.

Judith states «i think the most likely split between natural and anthropogenic causes to recent global warming is about 50 - 50».

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.

«The very low summer extent of Arctic sea ice that has been observed in recent years is often casually interpreted as an early - warning sign of anthropogenic global warming.

And have any academic studies been done that show what proportion of press / media coverage of global warming is sympathetic to the argument that it is anthropogenic and serious, what proportion is antipathetic to that argument, and what proportion is neutral; and how the proportions have altered over recent years?

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.

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.»

No, scientific inquiry and results published in peer - reviewed scientific literature have shown the recent global warming is primarily due to anthropogenic GHG emissions.

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.

However, it don't agree that it is a definitive statement on the lack of a link between recent hurricane activity and anthropogenic global warming.

And have any peer reviewed studies been done that show what proportion of press / media coverage of global warming is sympathetic to the argument that it is anthropogenic and serious, what proportion is antipathetic to that argument, and what proportion is neutral; and how the proportions have altered over recent years?

Anthropogenic global warming (AGW), a recent warming of the Earth's lower atmosphere as evidenced by the global mean temperature anomaly trend [11], is BELIEVED to be the result of an «enhanced greenhouse effect» mainly due to human - produced increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere [12] and changes in the use of land [13].

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 (AGW).

If you wonder why the anthropogenic climate change theory («global warming») is losing credibility among the general population, you need not look any further than articles and statements such as your recent paper.

Remember the recent United Nations Climate Summit in New York featuring President Obama and other world leaders collectively wringing their hands over the alleged imminent danger from anthropogenic (human - caused) global warming?

Those who support the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), now known as anthropogenic climate change so that recent cooling can be included in their scenario, always deny that the sun has anything to do with recent global temperature movements.

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.

Polititicians, all over the world, have been made believe, that the recent increase of CO2 content in atmosphere is dominated by anthropogenic CO2 emissions caused by burning fossile fuels, and that the recent global warming is mainly attributed to the recent increase of CO2 content in atmosphere.

Instead the recent total CO2 increase in atmosphere has been about 2 ppm, where, according to natural laws, the anthropogenic share is 0.08 ppm; the total increase of CO2 content in atmosphere has been caused by warming of global sea surface, especially on the areas where sea surface CO2 sinks are.»

This implies that recent global warming is not statistically significantly related to anthropogenic forcing.

Any warming observed prior to WWII is indicative of «global warming» (GW), but (since there were no significant human GHG emissions yet) is counterindicative of anthropogenic greenhouse warming (AGW), since something other than human GHGs caused it, raising the question: if non GH warming caused this warming, could it not also have caused the most recent extended warming period?

A recent survey of climate change literature for 2017 revealed that the alleged «consensus» behind the dangers of anthropogenic global warming is not nearly as settled among climate scientists as people imagine.

First result:... there is no «consensus» among scientists that recent global warming was chiefly anthropogenic, still less that unmitigated anthropogenic warming has been or will be dangerous or catastrophic...

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.

A recent report by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which has received wide media attention, has come to the conclusion that evidence for anthropogenic global warming is «undeniable.»

90 % of respondents with more than 10 climate - related peer - reviewed publications (about half of all respondents), agreed that anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHG) are the dominant driver of recent global warming.

In the Comment by Nuccitelli et al., they make many false and invalid criticisms of the CFC - warming theory in my recent paper, and claim that their anthropogenic forcings including CO2 would provide a better explanation of the observed global mean surface temperature (GMST) data over the past 50 years.

90 % of respondents with more than 10 climate - related peer - reviewed publications (about half of all respondents), explicitly agreed with anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHGs) being the dominant driver of recent global warming.

Let's leave the minor quibble aside that AR5 puts the anthropogenic contribution at «extremely likely» having caused more than half of the recent global warming.

Derek, you really should read Stoat's recent post about people who deny anthropogenic global warming.

Anthropogenic global warming (AGW), a recent warming of the Earth's lower atmosphere as evidenced by the global mean temperature anomaly trend [9], is believed to be the result of an «enhanced greenhouse effect» mainly due to human - produced increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere [10] and changes in the use of land [11]..

Dr. Roy Spencer, like Dr. Richard Lindzen (the subject of a few recent articles), is one of very few climate scientists who remain unconvinced that most of the the recent global warming has been caused by humans (anthropogenic).

As I see it, the prediction is, that if anthropogenic CO2 is a significant driver of global warming in recent times, and has continued to increase, then temperatures should have continued to increase in the last decade or so.

In a lengthy interview in The Guardian yesterday, James Lovelock, scientist and inventor, prominent global warming advocate, and originator of the Gaia theory, has some startling comments on recent scandals relating to the science of anthropogenic global warming, AGW skeptics, adaptation and global governance.

[Judy] I think the most likely split between natural and anthropogenic causes to recent global warming is about 50 - 50.

As such, we find that recent global temperature records are consistent with the existing understanding of the relationship among global surface temperature, internal variability, and radiative forcing, which includes anthropogenic factors with well known warming and cooling effects.

These results provide solid evidence that recent global warming was indeed caused by the greenhouse effect of anthropogenic halogenated gases.

Ergo acceptance of greenhouse gases as the major contributor to global warming strongly implies that anthropogenic causes are the major contributor to recent warming.

The new position statement is equivocal, beginning with the observation that «the AAPG membership is divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO2 has on recent and potential global temperature increases», and going on to say «Certain climate simulation models predict that the warming trend will continue, as reported through NAS, AGU, AAAS, and AMS.

Neither the hockey stick controversy nor the recent lack of warming materially affect the science upon which the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is based.

* «UK rainfall shows large year to year variability, making trends hard to detect» * «While connections can be made between climate change and dry seasons in some parts of the world, there is currently no clear evidence of such a link to recent dry periods in the UK» * «The attribution of these changes to anthropogenic global warming requires climate models of sufficient resolution to capture storms and their associated rainfall.»

After reviewing evidence in both the latest global data (HadCRUT4) and the longest instrumental record, Central England Temperature, a revised picture is emerging that gives a consistent attribution for each multidecadal episode of warming and cooling in recent history, and suggests that the anthropogenic global warming trends might have been overestimated by a factor of two in the second half of the 20th century.

Which is why it's clear that anthropogenic climate change to date can not be held responsible for large scale loss of species, because global warming is so recent in its inception.

I've found a paper that disagrees with the consensus that the recent warming is mostly anthropogenic: http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/ep/preprint/mayjun96/4344.html «The simulation implies that the solar part of the forcing, alone, would account for 71 % of the global mean temperature variance, compared to 51 % for the greenhouse gases part, alone.»

As to» the truth», researchers have not expressed any evidence based on empiric observations according to which the trend of recent multidecadal global warming could have been controlled by anthropogenic CO2 emissions to atmospere.

The current approach that is generally pursued assumes essentially that past climate variability is indistinguishable from a stochastic red - noise process... Given such a null hypothesis, the official consensus of IPCC (1995) tilts towards a global warming effect of recent trace - gas emissions, which exceeds the cooling effect of anthropogenic aerosol emissions.»