Sentences with phrase «significant global warming because»

Monckton's argument is very similar to the myth that CO2 can't cause significant global warming because it only comprises 0.04 % of the atmosphere.

35) It is a myth that computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming because computer models can be made to «verify» anything

Not exact matches

The Province of B.C. is willing to make significant environmental sacrifices for projects that will bring economic benefits to the Province of B.C.. On the other hand, they will block a project needed by a land - locked sister province, a project that would benefit all of Canada, claiming that they are doing so because they must protect the environment, protect the land from damage and reduce global warming.

A slowly dropping rate of increase would still be disastrous, but encouraging because it would suggest that we have done something real and significant to start moving the needle int the right direction, but sooner or later, the needle has to start moving down or our global warming troubles will continue to build and the only change we are creating is the rate at which are troubles will build.

Just because you're not stuck indoors all day because it's 102 degrees outside in January doesn't mean there isn't significant evidence of global warming.

Because the long - term warming trends are highly significant relative to our estimates of the magnitude of natural variability, the current decadal period of stable global mean temperature does nothing to alter a fundamental conclusion from the AR4: warming has unequivocally been observed and documented.

Models indicate that cloud - feedback would not substantially slow global warming, but because of the uncertainty, it has been an area of significant scientific interest.

A one - degree global change is significant because it takes a vast amount of heat to warm all the oceans, atmosphere, and land by that much.

Again, no significant trend of the global averaged Gaa [atmospheric greenhouse effect] is found from 2003 to 2014 (Fig. 2) because the enhanced warming effect over the western tropical Pacific is largely counteracted by the weakened warming influence on the central tropical Pacific.

On the other hand, despite the overwhelming evidence that global warming will transform the Earth's climate for centuries, with fearful consequences for human health and wellbeing (not to mention the survival of many species and ecosystems), the world can not agree to significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions because of concerns about the effects on economic growth.

First, Happer mentions statistical significance, but global surface temperature trends are rarely if ever statistically significant (at a 95 % confidence level) over periods as short as a decade, even in the presence of an underlying long - term warming trend, because of the natural variability and noise in the climate system.

The fact that so many studies on climate change don't bother to endorse the consensus position is significant because scientists have largely moved from what's causing global warming onto discussing details of the problem (eg - how fast, how soon, impacts, etc).

In the question and answer session, he disputed the validity of Doran 2009 because relatively few climate science experts had participated (77 of 79 answered that human activity is a significant contributing factor to global warming).

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.

... incomplete and misleading because it 1) omits any mention of several of the most important aspects of the potential relationships between hurricanes and global warming, including rainfall, sea level, and storm surge; 2) leaves the impression that there is no significant connection between recent climate change caused by human activities and hurricane characteristics and impacts; and 3) does not take full account of the significance of recently identified trends and variations in tropical storms in causing impacts as compared to increasing societal vulnerability.

I think you should correct that oversight because for as long as the global warming idea has been around no one has been able to show any significant warming of the Earth.

However, despite this, the team reckon to have perhaps isolated a «global warming» signal in the accelerated run off of the Greenland Ice Mass — but only just, because the runoff at the edges is balanced by increasing central mass — again, they focus upon recent trends — a net loss of about 22 cubic kilometres in total ice mass per year which they regard as statistically not significant — to find the «signal», and a contradiction to their ealier context of air temperature cycles.

There seems to be significant confusion on the issue of human caused global warming because some say that the warming has stopped, or paused.

Werner Brozek: What you are missing is the fact that just because the trend since a certain time is not statistically - significant does not mean that global warming has stopped at that time, particularly when the difference of the trend from the longer term trend is not statistically - significant either.

There will never have been statistically significant global warming is the last few years, because statistical significance is heavily dependent on the amount of data points and hence the length of the record you are trending.

This was significant, said Carrington, «because the rate of global warming from 2000 - 2009 is lower than the 0.16 C per decade trend seen since the late 1970s -LSB-...] the warming rate for the past 10 years is estimated at 0.08 - 0.16 C».

Because, as we have demonstrated in the recent article on «equity» and climate change, there are approximately 50 ppm of CO2 equivalent atmospheric space that remain to be allocated among all nations to give the world approximately a 50 % chance of avoiding a 2oC warming and developing nations that have done little to elevate atmospheric CO2 to current levels need a significant portion of the remaining atmospheric space, high emitting developed nations need to reduce their emissions as fast as possible to levels that represent their fair share of the remaining acceptable global budget.

There is also this fact which is becoming statistically highly significant I don't believe it has anything to do with «global warming» (because the met office UK has admitted no significant warming for 15 years now):

I'm alternately told by «skeptics» (1) it's regional impact that's important, (2) it's global data that's more important, (3) there is no such thing as «global temperatures,» (4) «skeptics» are not monolithic, (5) «skeptics» don't doubt that global temperatures are warming (and that it is to some extent influenced by AC02), or alternately «we dismiss non-Global data), (6) all methodologyies used to determine global temps are unreliable, (7) global warming has stopped, (8) we're experiencing global cooling, (9) what matters is long term trends, (10) short - term trends are significant, (11) what's happening in Arctic isn't important (because it's regional), (12) what's happening in the Antarctic is important (despite it being regional).

Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human - induced global warming... This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected.

Because of the first of these reasons, were we to abruptly halt all emissions now, the sulfate aerosols would rapidly be removed from the atmosphere by precipitation whereas the CO2 concentration would remain elevated, and so there would be a significant further warming influence just as a result of past emissions; this warming would lead to the quite significant global warming that Lindzen mentions.

And I assume the Sierra Club would issue a public retraction if confronted with the facts that the data are precisely as I described that over the last 18 years there has been no significant warming and indeed that is why global warming alarmists invented the term «the pause» to explain what they called the pause in global warming because the data demonstrate what you just said, that the Earth is cooking and warming, is not back up by the data.

This difference is significant because research shows that people are more likely to support policy actions to reduce carbon dioxide emissions if they are aware of the overwhelming agreement among experts that we are causing global warming.

We consider such references to be the real «rhetorical devices» because they obscure the key scientific issue: whether this critical component of the earth's biosphere will cause significant and destructive global warming.

«Because the effects of volcanic eruptions and of ENSO are very short - term and that of solar variability very small, none of these factors can be expected to exert a significant influence on the continuation of global warming over the coming decades.

Michaels points satellite data, claiming that «you see it's really not global warming, obviously -LSB-...] In fact, because there is a net statistically significant cooling of the whole record, it almost looks to me, as a scientist, like what's really going on here is the planet has remained in the slight cooling phase that it was in since World War II -LSB-...]» [93]

But the point is I don't have to disprove global warming: you have to prove it, because you are asking billions of people to make significant economic sacrifices on behalf of a scientific theory that you haven't proved.

According to CEI, the dissenter wanted to include «a significant internal critique of the agency's global warming position» but was stifled because the report didn't fit the political conclusion the EPA had already reached.

Reaching the 17 - year mark with no significant warming is a milestone because a climate change research team at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory defined it as the minimum length of time necessary to «separate human - caused global warming from the «noise» of purely natural climate fluctuations,» according to a 2011 press release.

Because of Asia's population and geography, the social and economic cost of global warming is likely to be significant.