Sentences with phrase «there natural warming cycles»

Not exact matches

Although Frank J. Schwartz, a shark biologist with the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, says there's too much natural variability in weather cycles to blame the recent shark attacks on global warming, George H. Burgess, the director of the International Shark Attack File at the Florida Museum of Natural Hnatural variability in weather cycles to blame the recent shark attacks on global warming, George H. Burgess, the director of the International Shark Attack File at the Florida Museum of Natural HNatural History.

Worldwide there was a significant natural warming trend in the 1980's and 1990's as a Solar cycle peaked with lots of sunspots and solar flares.

A more reasonable natural variability / forcing argument might go something like this: 1) There is natural variability of climate due to solar activity 2) Climate is changing now 3) Forcing can result in climate change, but the response of the C cycle to forcing is poorly understood 4) Forcing is happening now 5) Forcing and / or solar activity could be to blame for current warming trends Is this unreasonable?

Mathematically speaking there is absolutely no chance that our current warming is in any sense a part of a natural cycle.

McCarthy and his colleagues, however, argue there could be a reprieve from warming based on natural ocean cycles — not solar activity.

There are many natural climatic cycles that we already know of, and the current warming trend may just be part of one that we have not yet identified.

Answer: While it is undoubtedly true that there are natural cycles and variations in global climate, those who insist that current warming is purely natural — or even mostly natural — have two challenges.

But the utter incoherence of views presented by deniers gives the game away even so (it's cooling, it's warming but the sun is responsible, it's warming but some unknown natural cycle is responsible, the «greenhouse» effect violates the laws of thermodynamics, but somehow the energy radiated back to the surface by the atmosphere simply vanishes, there is a greenhouse effect but negative feed - backs make it negligible, & c ad nauseam).

A decades - long natural cycle would do the trick; it wouldn't mean there was no anthropogenic warming.

«While it is undoubtably true that there are some cycles and natural variations in global climate, anyone who wishes to insist that the current warming is purely or even just mostly natural has two challenges.»

There are natural processes that drive global climate warming, like Milankovitch cycles, and these are accounted for in (for example) the IPCC reports, as well as numerous studies.

Firstly, even with man - made global warming taken into account, because of the short - term noise due to the internal variability in the climate system, climate models predict that there will be decades where natural cycles dampen the man - made warming trend.

It seems for instance there is a 1 Kyear natural cycle leading to RWP about 2 Kyears ago and a MWP about 1 Kyear ago... See for illustration Ljungqvist 2010 Actually Global Warming observed during 19th and 20th centuries is very likely corresponding to LIA recovery, i.e. from the cool period of this 1 Kyear cycle.

He says that, in terms of climate science research, scientists still need to address the remaining uncertainties in the carbon cycle: where and how fast the carbon released into the atmosphere goes, how much stays in the atmosphere, whether there are limits to some natural sinks for carbon and whether there are important new sources of carbon emissions that may be triggered by warming.

If all that CO2 does is to marginally raise global temperature over the period of a natural solar driven warming and cooling cycle then there is nothing to fear because the mitigating effect in cool periods will outweigh any discomfort from the aggravating effect at and around the peak of the warm periods.

In preparation for that program and using the results of Figures 4.4 and 4.5 of the report published on the website of The Right Climate Stuff Research Team: http://www.therightclimatestuff.com/BoundingClimateSensitivityForRegDecisions.pdf, I concluded that if one believes there has been no continued natural warming since 1850 from the approx. 1000 year period natural climate cycle that brought us the Roman Warm Period, The Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, then the carefully worded IPCC AR5 report claim that most of the global warming since 1950 is due to human causes, is TRUE.

The much bigger fact that stands out is that there was no significant cooling trend during this time (when there should have been if we are in a natural cycle) and that we continued to have warmer years in 2005 and 2010 and soon to be 2014.

The book claims that there is no climate catastrophe because global warming is part of a natural cycle related to the sun.

But in defiance of the naysayers who want to chalk the recent warming up to natural cycles, there is insufficient evidence that enough extra solar energy is reaching our planet to account for the observed rise in global temperatures.

Of course, these glacial - interglacial cycles operate on very long timescales (tens of thousands of years), and it is possible that superimposed on the natural cooling trend there is some «natural warming trend» that is part of a shorter - timescale variability, but no one (no one) has found any evidence to support this yet.

My point, that there have been three periods approximately 30 years long, in the last century and a half, in which the rate of temperature rise was the same as it was from 1970 - 2000 shows that the recent coolings and warmings are from natural cycles.