Sentences with phrase «significant global warming since»

Satellites show no warming in the troposphere «Satellite measurements indicate an absence of significant global warming since 1979, the very period that human carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing rapidly.

As the state - of - the - art satellite technology shows (see chart), significant global warming since the early 2000's has been nonexistent.

Not exact matches

Phil Jones says no global warming since 1995 «Phil Jones said that for the past 15 years there has been no «statistically significant» warming.

Dr. Benestad's reasoning is based on the erroneous assumption that if there are no significant trends in some proxies for the solar activity since 1950s the sun is not contributing to the global warming.

Since 1950, the volcanic forcing has been negative due to a few significant eruptions, and has offset the modestly positive solar forcing, such that the net natural external forcing contribution to global warming over the past 50 years is approximately zero (more specifically, the authors estimate the natural forcing contribution since 1950 at -10 to +13 %, with a most likely value of Since 1950, the volcanic forcing has been negative due to a few significant eruptions, and has offset the modestly positive solar forcing, such that the net natural external forcing contribution to global warming over the past 50 years is approximately zero (more specifically, the authors estimate the natural forcing contribution since 1950 at -10 to +13 %, with a most likely value of since 1950 at -10 to +13 %, with a most likely value of 1 %).

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.

Note, this is separate from the highly debated issue of whether global warming has led to a significant increase in Category 4 and 5 hurricanes since the 1970s.

The paper was accompanied by a press release entitled «Global Warming not a Man - made Phenomenon», in which Shaviv was quoted as stating, «The operative significance of our research is that a significant reduction of the release of greenhouse gases will not significantly lower the global temperature, since only about a third of the warming over the past century should be attributed to man&rGlobal Warming not a Man - made Phenomenon», in which Shaviv was quoted as stating, «The operative significance of our research is that a significant reduction of the release of greenhouse gases will not significantly lower the global temperature, since only about a third of the warming over the past century should be attributed to man&Warming not a Man - made Phenomenon», in which Shaviv was quoted as stating, «The operative significance of our research is that a significant reduction of the release of greenhouse gases will not significantly lower the global temperature, since only about a third of the warming over the past century should be attributed to man&rglobal temperature, since only about a third of the warming over the past century should be attributed to man&warming over the past century should be attributed to man».

GISTemp will most likely show «statistically significant» global warming since October 1998.

Last year was the second or third warmest year for annual global temperatures since 1850, after 2015 and 2016, both of which were dominated by a significant El Niño.

Interestingly, the paper «Climate Trends and Global food production since 1980» (Lobell, Schlenker, Costa - Roberts, in Sciencexpress, 5 May, Science 1204531) confirms my finding of the absence of climate change in the USA: «A notable exception to the [global] warming pattern is the United States, which produces c. 40 % of global maize and soybean and experienced a slight cooling over the period... the country with largest overall share of crop production (United States) showed no [adverse] effect due to the lack of significant climate trends&rGlobal food production since 1980» (Lobell, Schlenker, Costa - Roberts, in Sciencexpress, 5 May, Science 1204531) confirms my finding of the absence of climate change in the USA: «A notable exception to the [global] warming pattern is the United States, which produces c. 40 % of global maize and soybean and experienced a slight cooling over the period... the country with largest overall share of crop production (United States) showed no [adverse] effect due to the lack of significant climate trends&rglobal] warming pattern is the United States, which produces c. 40 % of global maize and soybean and experienced a slight cooling over the period... the country with largest overall share of crop production (United States) showed no [adverse] effect due to the lack of significant climate trends&rglobal maize and soybean and experienced a slight cooling over the period... the country with largest overall share of crop production (United States) showed no [adverse] effect due to the lack of significant climate trends».

Hadcrut 4 is one of several similar global databases that reveal the same thing: that since January 1997 there has been no statistically significant warming of the Earth's surface.

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.

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?

While natural sources of climate variability are significant, multiple lines of evidence indicate that human influences have had an increasingly dominant effect on global climate warming observed since the mid-twentieth century.

As I predicted two weeks ago, there has been a media and blog frenzy over the statement by climatologist Phil Jones that global warming since 1995 has not been «statistically significant».

since most people who are concerned about it would much rather that global warming be far less significant.

I can certainly understand why those who do not have as clear an understanding of the climate system as Jim Hansen does would want to be more ambivalent with respect to advocating action to counteract global warming since, this has very significant economic implications.

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.

As the climate science experts and the empirical climate record datasets confirm, there has been no global «climate - significant» warming since 1998.

In a piece published on «Watts Up With That» Lindzen says «There has been no warming since 1997 and no statistically significant warming since 1995» and in this piece for Quadrant he gives a variation, saying «has been no statistically significant net global warming for the last fourteen years» and «the fact that warming has ceased for the past fourteen years is acknowledged».

Jones answered honestly, if a bit clumsily, that the data period since 1995 is marginally too short to derive a statistically significant trend, a response which was headlined by the Daily Mail as «Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995?»

In reality, there essentially has been no significant global warming in the US since the 1940s.

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».

And instead of paying attention to the science and the real - world data (which show there has been no statistically significant «global warming» since January 1997), we've fallen prey to the doomy prognostications of overpromoted climate activists such as Flannery, Viner and Al Gore.

Shaviv and Veizer's paper was accompanied by a press release titled «Global warming not a man - made phenomenon», in which Shaviv is quoted stating: «The operative significance of our research is that a significant reduction of the release of greenhouse gases will not significantly lower the global temperature, since only about a third of the warming over the past century should be attributed to man&rGlobal warming not a man - made phenomenon», in which Shaviv is quoted stating: «The operative significance of our research is that a significant reduction of the release of greenhouse gases will not significantly lower the global temperature, since only about a third of the warming over the past century should be attributed to man&rglobal temperature, since only about a third of the warming over the past century should be attributed to man».

There have been three assessments of global warming by the international panel since 1990, and each has drawn a more conclusive picture than the last of the link between human activities and the prospects for significant harm to agriculture, ecosystems and coastlines.

The discussion of whether 2012 is the 8th, 9th 10th or 11th warmest annual global average surface temperature is intellectually engaging (and a bit of a waste of the engaged intellect), but a more significant point is that the warm years since 1998 have all occured without a transient bump comparable to the one that 1998 recieved from the signifcant El Nino that occured.

«Sure, they'll probably try to confuse us with trick questions: Like why, apart from natural 1998 and 2015 El Nino spikes, satellites haven't recorded any statistically significant global warming for nearly two decades; why sea levels have been rising at a constant rate of 7 inches per century without acceleration; and why no category 3 - 5 hurricanes have struck the U.S. coast since October 2005 — a record lull since 1900.

In almost every alarmist report about global warming (or «climate change» as it is currently called since the earth has been cooling) they conveniently avoid mentioning the most significant influence of the earth's temperature, The Sun.

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]

1) CO2 is not rising significantly compared to earlier in the 20th century (Beck, Segalstad, Jaworowski) 2) OK, so CO2 is rising, but human sources are but a minor player (Howard Hayden, Spencer on WUWT) 3) OK, so human CO2 is significant, but its temperature effect is nonexistant (Heinz Hug) 4) OK, so CO2 has a temperature effect, but it is dwarfed by water vapour (Lindzen, Reid Bryson, Tim Ball 5) OK, so the CO2 temperature effect is not completely dwarfed by water vapour, but the sun is much more important (Svensmark, Shaviv, many others) 6) OK, so the solar output has been flat since the 50ies, but there are no net positive feedback (Lindzen again, Spencer again) 7) Actually, there has been no significant global warming (Watts, Singer + more), 8) Hey, all this warming is a) unstoppable anyway (Singer again) b) good for humanity (Michaels).

Thus that warming is barely 0.4 oC since 1940, by when global coverage was acceptable, but hardly statistically significant — even though the anomalies in the data sets one can download for each decade are given no less than 4 decimal points.