Sentences with phrase «significant global warming means»

For this article, a statistically - significant global warming means that the linear trend (slope of the trend line) is likely greater than zero with 95 % statistical confidence (i.e. the 95 % error bars do not include a possible 0.0 or negative temperature degree slope).

Not exact matches

Without significant mitigation, the report says global mean warming could reach as high as 7 degrees Celsius by 2100.

A big factor in those oscillations is ENSO — whether there is a a warm El Niño event, or a cool La Niña event makes an appreciable difference in the global mean anomalies — about 0.1 to 0.2 ºC for significant events.

And even if there was significant uncertainty about the probability of global warming, that would be no cause for complacency, since it could mean that things were going to turn out worse than predicted.

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.»

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.

In regards to your question, if you mean how robust is the «slowdown» in global surface warming, the answer is it just probably just barely statistically significant.

Being off by 20 % means that global warming will still be a significant problem and the sensitivity assumptions of 3.0 C per doubling of CO2 is close to being correct.

A failure to appreciate the role clouds play in regulating the Earth's temperature means that a significant number of climate change predictions underestimate the likely extent of global warming over the coming years, scientists have claimed.

Which forms the basis for the IPCC claim of high climate sensitivity (mean value of 3.2 C), resulting in significant global warming (up to 6.4 C warming by 2100), «extreme high sea levels», increased «heat waves», increased «heavy rains» and floods, increased «droughts», increased «intense tropical cyclones» — which, in turn, lead to crop failures, disappearance of glaciers now supplying drinking water to millions, increased vector borne diseases, etc. (for short, potentially catastrophic AGW — or «CAGW»).

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.

Just for the record, apart from major 1998 and 2024 - 16 ocean El Niño events, satellite instruments, the best measurements available, show no statistically significant mean global warming now for nearly two decades.

From the paper: «The results also 1) reveal a significant level of coupling between ocean and land temperatures that remains even after the effects of ENSO and volcanic eruptions have been removed; 2) serve to highlight the improvements in the quality of the time series of global - mean land temperatures with the increase in the areal coverage of the station network from 1951 onward; and 3) yield a residual time series in which the signature of anthropogenically induced global warming is more prominent.»

Jin et al. (2004) show that zonal mean UHI has 1 - 3 degree warming over the Northern Hemisphere latitudes, implying that the collective UHI may be a significant contributing factor in the overall global warming signal

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?

He actually said there was no «statistially significant» global warming, but people don't know what that means.

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.

While global mean temperature and tropical Atlantic SSTs show pronounced and statistically significant warming trends (green curves), the U.S. landfalling hurricane record (orange curve) shows no significant increase or decrease.

and were just too happy to interpret this as meaning that there has been no significant global warming.