Sentences with phrase «warming due to»

Global warming due to overpopulation accepts the assumption that human addition of CO2 to the atmosphere is the cause and more people will produce more CO2.

Or was the pause in atmospheric warming due to temporary cyclical changes in the Atlantic circulation, or the Southern Ocean?

How about, «Study shows half of USA global warming due to faulty weather - station siting»

He simply pulls prognostications out of his government - paid arse and fabricates a prediction out of out of whole cloth — i.e., global warming due to humanity's release of CO2 into the atmosphere in 10 years.

As a result, there is no evidence of accelerated warming due to human emission of CO2.

The more this question is studied, the more data is gathered, the firmer the conclusion becomes — the planet is warming due to human release of greenhouse gases, such as CO2.

Based on land - surface temperatures, Africa does not appear to be affected by the «unprecedented» global warming due to the «unprecedented» global CO2 levels, which represents a catastrophic prediction failure by the IPPC and its climate models.

The overall effect of the cloudiness on the earth is a cooling effect but there is enough warming due to the decrease in outgoing IR radiation that it offset a considerable fraction of the cooling effect due to the increase in albedo alone.

Our calculations suggest that around Antarctica the ozone hole may have delayed warming due to greenhouse gases by several decades.

Current global climate models suggest that the water vapor feedback to global warming due to carbon dioxide increases is weak but these models do not fully resolve the tropopause or the cold point, nor do they completely represent the QBO [Quasi Biennial Oscillation], deep convective transport and its linkages to SSTs, or the impact of aerosol heating on water input to the stratosphere.

1) there is no greenhouse effect of atmospheric warming due to increase in CO2:

Global warming due to humans is based on the hypothesis that our addition of CO2 has changed the balance of energy entering and leaving the Earth's atmosphere.

Over the last ten years, one - fourth of human - emissions of carbon dioxide as well as 90 percent of additional warming due to the greenhouse effect have been absorbed by the oceans.

For example, the atmospheric warming due to increased CO2 might well be expected to increase water evaporation so as to keep Relative Humidity constant (albeit raising Specific Humidity), so amplifying the small warming effect of CO2 itself.

Perhaps the Indian Ocean is warming due to GHGs.

This is the same approach where the terms «climate change» and «climate disruption» are used as [erroneous] synonyms for global warming due to the emissions of greenhouse gases.

As we now that there has been a period of 18 years with no surface warming when atmospheric CO2 was increasing for each and every year we know that the majority of the warming in the last 50 years was not due to the increase in atmospheric CO2 and the IPCC general circulation model calculated warming due to CO2 is orders of magnitude too high.

During the next 30 years the planet warmed, prompting some of the same scientists to claim that we were warming due to CO2 emissions and the warming would be catastrophic (please send more funding to enable us to quantify the doom).

A: The vast majority of published climate science papers in the 1970s were related to the same concern that prevails today: warming due to the increase in heat - trapping gases.

Study: Half of warming due to Sun!

Pingback: «Half Of Late 20th Warming Due To Warm Ocean Cycle» The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)

There is no global warming due to human anthropogenic activities.

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.

The tropical tropospheric hot spot prediction is not based on water vapour feedback to warming, and it is especially not unique to warming due to any other GHG forcing.

Show me solid empirical evidence that the planet is warming due to increases in carbon dioxide, and you may well convince me that I'm in error.

Tett SFB et al., JGR 2002 (Estimation of natural and anthropogenic contributions to twentieth century temperature change,) says «Our analysis suggests that the early twentieth century warming can best be explained by a combination of warming due to increases in greenhouse gases and natural forcing, some cooling due to other anthropogenic forcings, and a substantial, but not implausible, contribution from internal variability.

As gases are evenly distributed in the atmosphere (ignoring very heavy or very light gases which biases the altitudinal distribution in the atmosphere), the potential for warming due to CO2 should be the same at all latitudes.

If the theory had any validity at all we would see some warming due to the increased amount of CO2, but we don't.

But we advance the premise that if losses are affected by natural climate fluctuations, they are also likely to be affected by additional global warming due to anthropogenic climate change.

If the CO2 was the entire cause of warming due to back radiation would not the atmosphere need to be warming in lockstep with the oceans?

Either way, I will leave you to your fairy tale warming due to CO2 in the atmosphere.

Studies such as Otto et al. (2012) display how the numerical scale of the simulation numbers allows for clear separation between a climate with lower level of heat - trapping gases (1960s) and the recent period (2000s), such that the 2010 heat wave in western Russia was more likely to occur with the additional warming due to climate change (Figure 3).

Then they switched to global warming due to the greenhouse effect.

99.9 % of scientists agree: the world is warming due to greenhouse gas emissions from human causes.

You are a Lukewarmer of the «second kind», meaning that you do not believe the Earth is warming due to back - radiation, but you do believe it is warming from some other source, which involves the (perceived) fact that the excess heat can not get out.

We show that irrespective of uncertainties in model parameters and feedback strengths, in our model a close link exists between the simulated warming due to a doubling of CO2, and the cooling obtained for the LGM.

As a result, warming due to man's impacts over the next 100 years may well be closer to one degree C than the forecasted six to eight.

And there is very real risk that the next few decades could see considerable further acceleration of Antarctica's glaciers as a result of human - forced warming due to fossil fuel burning.

The influence is clear: a pronounced recent ENSO - induced cooling which has cancelled the continued global warming due to man - made CO2, leading to the «hiatus» in the increase of global temperature.

Therefore, any increase in losses could, more likely than not, be partly related to anthropogenic climate change... we advance the premise that if losses are affected by natural climate fluctuations, they are also likely to be affected by additional global warming due to anthropogenic climate change.

He calimed that the solar effect on cooling is 3 to 9 less effective then the warming due to AGW (according to projections).

Believe that the Earth is warming due to a greenhouse effect if you must.

In fact, if it weren't for the continued warming due to human activity, natural variations (like ENSO) would have brought about a notable cooling over the last decade or so.

Cooling temperatures in the stratosphere are expected in a world that is warming due to the buildup in greenhouse gases, as more heat is trapped in the lower atmosphere.

One that jibes with predicted polar warming due to the human heat forcing.

When cold weather is excused as a cold snap weather pattern and hot weather is touted as the globe warming due to climate change and these two temperature differences are plugged into models differently, then the scam is on.

TCADI simulations show enhanced warming due to greater sensitivity to CO2, aerosol effects, and greater methane feedbacks, and recovery is much slower in RCP2.6 than with the NINT and TCAD versions.

The science indicates warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in less of than 1C of warming with most of the warming occurring at higher latitudes where it will be result in an expansion of the biosphere.

In turn, there are very good reasons to suspect that climate modelers may be greatly exaggerating future warming due to man.

But the vast majority of such scientists are convinced that ongoing trends and changes, such as the rapid melting of glaciers that we are currently witnessing, are indeed the result of warming due to man - made greenhouse gas emissions.