Sentences with phrase «significant impact on global temperatures»

Of course, the later expectation together with the global temperature record refutes the idea that the orbital changes he identifies has had any significant impact on global temperatures.

And it's producible today at the quantities needed to make a significant impact on global temperatures.

The amount of energy difference is huge and I don't think that many people would argue that they don't have a significant impact on the global temperature in the short run.

Not exact matches

The link between global temperature and rate of sea level change provides a brilliant opportunity for cross-validation of these two parameters over the last several millenia (one might add - in the relationship between atmospheric [CO2] and Earth temperature in the period before any significant human impact on [CO2]-RRB-.

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).

Since the estimated temperature range is from -113 C to -73 C that would be a polar impact of ~ 53Wm - 2 or a «global» equivalent impact of about 6.7 Wm - 2 which based on my lack of proper a proper math education is significant with respect to 3.7 Wm - 2.

Since BBD is convinced that delayed responses to forcing on the order of 500 years can have no significant impact on «global mean surface temperature», pearls before swine pops into my head.

Such an increase in CO2 emissions could raise global average temperatures by 6 °C or more, resulting in significant impacts on all aspects of life and irreversible changes in the natural environment.

The Paris Agreement won't make a significant impact on the environment, even with full implementation, producing an estimated difference of «two - tenths of one degree» Celsius reduction in global temperatures by 2100, according to Trump.

Global warming, which may have produced temperatures 10 to 30 degrees Celsius higher than today, would have had a significant impact both on oceans, where about 95 % of lifeforms became extinct, and on land, where almost 75 % of species died out.

«Climate science» as it is used by warmists implies adherence to a set of beliefs: (1) Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations will warm the Earth's surface and atmosphere; (2) Human production of CO2 is producing significant increases in CO2 concentration; (3) The rate of rise of temperature in the 20th and 21st centuries is unprecedented compared to the rates of change of temperature in the previous two millennia and this can only be due to rising greenhouse gas concentrations; (4) The climate of the 19th century was ideal and may be taken as a standard to compare against any current climate; (5) global climate models, while still not perfect, are good enough to indicate that continued use of fossil fuels at projected rates in the 21st century will cause the CO2 concentration to rise to a high level by 2100 (possibly 700 to 900 ppm); (6) The global average temperature under this condition will rise more than 3 °C from the late 19th century ideal; (7) The negative impact on humanity of such a rise will be enormous; (8) The only alternative to such a disaster is to immediately and sharply reduce CO2 emissions (reducing emissions in 2050 by 80 % compared to today's rate) and continue further reductions after 2050; (9) Even with such draconian CO2 reductions, the CO2 concentration is likely to reach at least 450 to 500 ppm by 2100 resulting in significant damage to humanity; (10) Such reductions in CO2 emissions are technically feasible and economically affordable while providing adequate energy to a growing world population that is increasingly industrializing.

Would you think that the North Atlantic seems to have significant impact on «global» land temperatures?

From direct observation we already know that the extreme predictions of CO2's impact on global temperature are highly unlikely given that about one - third of all our CO2 emissions have been discharged during the past 18 years and there has been no statistically significant warming.

This would exceed by far the temperature fluctuations of the past several thousand years and would very likely, along the way, have a highly significant impact on global precipitation.

The original Petition was substantially based on a major peer - reviewed 2016 scientific paper by James Wallace, John Christy and Joseph D'Aleo (Wallace 2016) that analyzed the best available temperature data sets and «failed to find that the steadily rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations have had a statistically significant impact on any of the 13 critically important tropical and global temperature time series data sets analyzed.»

Thus although these individual cuts won't have a significant direct impact on global temperatures, they can have a major indirect effect by triggering more widespread emissions cuts.