Sentences with phrase «warming beliefs increases»

Not exact matches

I don't reject the belief that increased CO2 levels result in global warming, only that the long - term environmental arguments are weaker than the short - term economic ones.

Ultimately, we show that present temperature abnormalities are given undue weight and lead to an overestimation of the frequency of similar past events, thereby increasing belief in and concern for global warming.

The belief that the seriousness of global warming is «generally exaggerated» has increased only slightly since 1997, rising from 31 % then to 35 % in 2008.

While Republicans» belief in human - induced global warming has declined 10 percentage points from 2003 to 2008 (from 52 % to 42 %), Democrats» belief has been steady (possibly even rising slightly, though the increase from 68 % to 73 % is not statistically significant).

The ability to collect data on solar and AMO / PDO has increased significantly and that should be noted as a positive, IMHO, not something that lends belief that there is some unknown element that contributes to current warming, aside from the % 5 - 10 uncertainty that there is an undiscovered element or a theory, that presently, lacks evidence.

The core premise of their belief system was that increasing amounts of CO2 was causing runaway atmospheric warming.

Jane Risen of the University of Chicago and Clayton Critcher of the University of California, Berkeley, provide evidence that belief in global warming increases along with the temperature one is currently experiencing.

In contrast, consumption of non-conservative media (specifically ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, NPR, The New York Times, and The Washington Post) increases consumer trust in scientists, and in turn belief that global warming is happening.

«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.

Since to me (and many scientists, although some wanted a lot more corroborative evidence, which they've also gotten) it makes absolutely no sense to presume that the earth would just go about its merry way and keep the climate nice and relatively stable for us (though this rare actual climate scientist pseudo skeptic seems to think it would, based upon some non scientific belief — see second half of this piece), when the earth changes climate easily as it is, climate is ultimately an expression of energy, it is stabilized (right now) by the oceans and ice sheets, and increasing the number of long term thermal radiation / heat energy absorbing and re radiating molecules to levels not seen on earth in several million years would add an enormous influx of energy to the lower atmosphere earth system, which would mildly warm the air and increasingly transfer energy to the earth over time, which in turn would start to alter those stabilizing systems (and which, with increasing ocean energy retention and accelerating polar ice sheet melting at both ends of the globe, is exactly what we've been seeing) and start to reinforce the same process until a new stases would be reached well after the atmospheric levels of ghg has stabilized.

Increased snow cover last year, cooler temperatures, higher temperatures in the 1920's and 1930's, etc. are all discounted as regional or temporary, because of the fundamental belief that the earth is warming due to man - made causes.

But crucially, consensus messaging was shown in an Australian experiment to partially neutralize the biasing influence of ideology with conservatives showing a greater increase in belief in human - caused global warming than liberals (Lewandowsky, Gignac, and Vaughan 2013).

It is particularly remarkable that rainfall driven by the Westerly Maritime Stream from the Atlantic has not risen markedly since the 1970s despite the belief global warming has been dramatic during this period and the expectation of increased oceanic evaporation and associated precipitation that should accompany such warming.

They simply reflect common beliefs (which might be wrong) regarding the impact of 2 ◦ C or 3 ◦ C of warming, and can tell us nothing about what might happen if the temperature increases by 5 ◦ C or more.

Belief that global warming is happening has increased.

I say that your conclusion that CO2 absorbs most of the solar radiation above the troposphere undermines your belief in increased levels of CO2 leading to global warming.

... that your conclusion that CO2 absorbs most of the solar radiation above the troposphere undermines your belief in increased levels of CO2 leading to global warming.....