Sentences with phrase «significant anthropogenic global warming»

The main column on the left includes arguments and evidence generally in support of the IPCC position on the reality of significant anthropogenic global warming.

Not exact matches

However, the important thing to remember is that there is a significant scientific consensus as to the facts quoted above — specifically those related to global warming and anthropogenic global warming.

Today the aim is to measure anthropogenic global warming, the hypothesis is this is significant and positive and the null is that this is zero.

Assuming a climate sensitivity of 0.7 K / W / m ^ 2, this would contribute less than 0.06 C of the estimated 0.6 C mean global warming between the Maunder Minimum and the middle of last century, before significant anthropogenic contributions could be involved.»

Scientists proposing catastrophic majority anthropogenic global warming models (a.k.a. «Climate change») bear the burden of proof of providing clear robust evidence supporting validated model predictions of anthropogenic warming with strong significant differences from this climatic null hypothesis.

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).

This is because no scientifically valid evidence has been found that increasing human - caused CO2 emissions would result in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) nor that it would even have a statistically significant effect on increasing global temperaGlobal Warming (CAGW) nor that it would even have a statistically significant effect on increasing global temperaglobal temperatures.

Resolved There is significant (or discernible) evidence of anthropogenic global warming, distinct from land use effects and natural variability, over the past

Among the aspects of that variation that we can isolate are probably factors that have produced a general «global» warming trend since the deepest part of the «Little Ice Age», long before any «mainstream» estimate of anthropogenic changes to pCO2 would have been significant.

Finally, while economics may be critical to your definition of «catastrophic» anthropogenic global warming, economics says nothing about the science underlying the projections of sea level rise, the physics of Arctic amplification, changes to albedo that lead to greater warming that may lead to significant releases of methane clathrate deposits, regional projections of reduce (or enhanced) precipitation, and so on.

P1: There is significant (or discernible) evidence of anthropogenic global warming over the past 16 32 years.

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?

Massive policy impacts need very highly significant evidence Proposed mitigation of majority anthropogenic global warming has very highly significant consequences, demanding massive transformation of our energy generation and use.

However, the case for alarm would still be weak even if anthropogenic global warming were significant.

It is ironic then that the tracks of the climate beast he named global warming all those years ago — that impose significant constraints on anthropogenic warming in the 20th century — can be seen so readily in the surface temperature record.

One well - known paper (Lewandowsky, Oberauer, & Gignac, 2013; referred to as LOG12 from here on) surveyed blog readers, finding a small but statistically significant link between doubts about anthropogenic global warming and conspiratorial thinking.

I mean if, as Nurse is now suggesting, the scientific mainstream understanding of global warming is that it's happening but that it's open to debate how significant it is then doesn't this completely contradict pretty much everything he, the Royal Society, and its two previous presidents Lords Rees and May have been doing this last decade or more to stoke up the Anthropogenic Global Warming scare for all they're global warming is that it's happening but that it's open to debate how significant it is then doesn't this completely contradict pretty much everything he, the Royal Society, and its two previous presidents Lords Rees and May have been doing this last decade or more to stoke up the Anthropogenic Global Warming scare for all they'rewarming is that it's happening but that it's open to debate how significant it is then doesn't this completely contradict pretty much everything he, the Royal Society, and its two previous presidents Lords Rees and May have been doing this last decade or more to stoke up the Anthropogenic Global Warming scare for all they're Global Warming scare for all they'reWarming scare for all they're worth?

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.

While I agree that anthropogenic actions are the major cause of global warming, I disagree that CO2 is a significant factor.

Interestingly, Penner et al. find that whether the climate sensitivity parameter is on the low or high end, reducing anthropogenic emissions of the short - lived warming pollutants would achieve a significant reduction in global warming over the next 50 - 100 years.

The theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (aka Human Induced Climate Change) does not fit the following facts: (1) Modern statistical techniques show that there has been no significant change in global average temperature for the last 166 Global Warming (aka Human Induced Climate Change) does not fit the following facts: (1) Modern statistical techniques show that there has been no significant change in global average temperature for the last 166 global average temperature for the last 166 years.

I believe the strong role of anthropogenic contributions to climate change with potentially significant adverse impacts (global warming and ocean acidification) is well documented by a large array of independent evidence.

Until recently, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists was the only significant scientific organization with an official position rejecting anthropogenic global warming.

The net effect of the remodelling is to create statistically significant warming of 0.7 °C in the ACORN - SAT mean temperature series for Rutherglen: in general agreement with anthropogenic global warming theory.