Sentences with phrase «warming evidence over»

Given what we have been hearing about global warming evidence over recent years, these results seem surprising.

Not exact matches

These numbers compare with 69 % of all people surveyed who «believe there is solid evidence that the average temperature on Earth has been getting warmer over the past few decades» and 57 % who «believe humans and other living things evolved over time.»

The global warming debate rages over which evidence is included and excluded, how that evidence is framed, and then how it's interpreted.

Provide any credible, reproducible, verifiable evidence for creationism or so - called intelligent design (which is nothing but warmed over creationism to feed to the ignorant).

''... For the warming over the last century, there is no convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence.»

Controversy over «incontrovertible» The roots of the conflict can be traced to 2007, when the APS released a statement on climate change stating, «The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.»

An important emerging issue, according to Stocker, is whether the unexpected hiatus in atmospheric warming over the past 15 years is a blip or evidence of a longer term trend.

A few of the main points of the third assessment report issued in 2001 include: An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system; emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols due to human activities continue to alter the atmosphere in ways that are expected to affect the climate; confidence in the ability of models to project future climate has increased; and there is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.

Not long after potent evidence began to emerge in the 1980s and 1990s that global warming is happening and that human fingerprints are all over it, countervailing forces showed up to deny it, she said.

For the warming over the last century, there is no convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence.»

The strongest evidence for global warming comes from physics and chemistry, not from records of past temperatures, which is why scientists were predicting warming long before the rise in temperature over the 20th century was obvious.

The evidence points to a warming of about 0.6 - 0.8 °C over the past century and a neglible effect on this from the UHI.

The Nature article comes as climate scientists published what they said today was the «best ever» collection of evidence for global warming, including temperature over land, at sea and in the higher atmosphere, along with records of humidity, sea - level rise, and melting ice.

The abstract includes the statement: «Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land.»

Moore argued that the current argument that the burning of fossil fuels is driving global warming over the past century lacks scientific evidence.

However, one of the panel's reservations was that ``... a statistical method used in the 1999 study was not the best and that some uncertainties in the work «have been underestimated,»...» The panel concluded «Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium.

Heat trapping greenhouse - gas emissions are the obvious culprit, since they've increased dramatically over that same 50 years, but scientists prefer hard evidence to presumption, so a team from the British Antarctic Survey has been drilling into ancient ice to see how the current warming stacks up against what happened in the ancient past.

Reminds me of global warming deniers, ultra sensitive on their own websites about a peep showing evidence, but full of deliberately misleading and even rude posts on websites concerned with addressing AGW, whose regulars bend over backwards to respond both factually and super duper sensitively.

A better approach might be, «What do you need to see in terms of evidence over the next few years to make you more likely to believe the Global Warming hypothesis?»

But I think the response does clarify one thing for me: the «The warming has to be due to CO2, as evidenced by its duration,» refers primarily not to the duration of the onset itself (which is what I was naively focussing on), but rather the fact that the warming lasted over millennial timescales.

Re # 8 (and to expand on # 13): I also think that a basic strategy of the global warming deniers is to focus on one aspect of the science over which there is some combination of real and manufactured dispute and then try to make people think that this is the one crucial piece of evidence on which the whole theory of anthropogenic warming rests... and thus that the dispute over this aspect throws the whole theory into question.

A lot of our fellow scientists, it seems, had trouble getting over their long - held view (based only on absence of evidence) that the only place in Antarctica that was warming up was the Antarctica Peninsula.

KUALA LUMPUR — In the opening talk at a two - day meeting here on Asia's clean energy options, Prime Minister Najib Razak of Malaysia provided fresh evidence of a shift in the longstanding diplomatic tussle over who does what to slow global warming.

Personally I got convinced that warming was underway in the late 1990s after borehole measurements in rocks around the world, far away from civilization, showed unmistakable evidence of warming over the past century... if you log temperature down the hole, you find that extra heat has been seeping down from the surface.

The «models used» (otherwise known as the CMIP5 ensemble) were * not * tuned for consistency for the period of interest (the 1950 - 2010 trend is what was highlighted in the IPCC reports, about 0.8 ºC warming) and the evidence is obvious from the fact that the trends in the individual model simulations over this period go from 0.35 to 1.29 ºC!

There was in fact no longer much evidence that CO2 emissions were the cause of the warming trend over the last 20 or so years of the 20th Century......... causality always implies correlation.»

The latest evidence is on display over at Realclimate.org, the blog on climate run by a loose network of climate scientists who are part of the broad consensus that human - caused warming poses unacceptable risks.

Despite this strong evidence for a warming planet, greenhouse gas forcing fails to explain the 2010 heat wave over western Russia.

In the most recent Third Assessment Report (2001), IPCC wrote «There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities» This section is trying to cast doubt on the IPCC report, one of the most comprehensive climate change studies.

Given all the independent lines of evidence pointing to average surface warming over the last few decades (satellite measurements, ocean temperatures, sea - level rise, retreating glaciers, phenological changes, shifts in the ranges of temperature - sensitive species), it is highly implausible that it would lead to more than very minor refinements to the current overall picture.

When the New York Times spreads headlines over «more costly hurricanes» as evidence of «global warming; whrere is the sane voice that scolds them for advancing such preposterous sylogisms.

Absence of evidence for greenhouse warming over the Arctic Ocean in the past 40 years (by title and author only, with a quote)

There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the past 50 years is attributable to human factors.

In 2001 it was claimed «there is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities» and the current report concludes says it is: «90 % probable» that the recent warming is «due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations».

The 2001 report said: «There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.»

Evidence for global warming over the last 150 years or so is so widespread that it can be denied only by those either unwilling to look or pushing an agenda in denial of observable facts.

I've challenged you over and over to cite your empirical evidence from peer reviewed science that shows that anthropogenic CO2 has been the primary cause of the late 20th century warming and you have FAILED to be able to cite a single peer reviewed paper that does so.

But Zycher points to excursions from 1910 - 1940 and 1940 - 1970 (a warming then a cooling that climate models do not collectively capture) as evidence of their inability to estimate response to forcing over longer periods.

Accusations of corrupt fossil fuel industry influence over skeptic climate scientists are irrelevant material — worthless — in the absence of any physical evidence (full context document scans, undercover video / audio transcripts, leaked emails, money - transfer receipts) proving such skeptics were paid and orchestrated to lie about the certainty of catastrophic man - caused global warming.

According to the Pew Research Center: «Nearly seven - in - ten (69 %)[Americans] say there is solid evidence that the earth's average temperature has been getting warmer over the past few decades, up six points since November 2011 and 12 points since 2009.»

Many people on the blog and elsewhere have presented more that a scrap of evidence that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are accumulating in the atmosphere and warming the planet over and above natural changes.

However, no one has presented evidence that these gases are «warming the planet over and above natural changes».

And that reality has been demonstrated over and over again, most recently in the work of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, led by Dr. Richard Muller, who began his comprehensive assessment as an avowed climate skeptic and ended it convinced by the clear evidence that global warming is happening and is caused by human activity.This conclusion is emphatically shared by the best and brightest of the global scientific community, including our own National Academy of Sciences.

Some of the comments over there keep on referring to the indisputable evidence for global warming all around us but to be honest I can't see it at all.

Based on this, the longer term planning should probably be based (from the available evidence) on an assumption of a measurable increase in temperature over the next 15 - 20 years, with the uncertainty being in the range «slight cooling» to «significant warming».

The East Coast elites, aging yuppies and metrosexual deadenders who bitterly cling to the CO2 - caused «global warming» religion are having a tough time... over the last 20 years, winters in the Northeast region of the U.S. have become more harsh and severe... that's opposite of their climate - doomsday cult leaders» predictions... instead of getting climate news from the likes of Al Gore and Brian Williams, Northeast denizens of elite enclaves might want to finally introduce themselves to what is called empirical evidence...

There is ample evidence in the UK of increasing fuel poverty (i.e., household spending over 10 % of disposable income keeping warm in winter) in the regions of wind farm deployment where higher electricity bills are needed to cover the rent of the land (from usually already rich) landowners, a direct reversal of the process whereby cheap energy over the last century has lifted a significant fraction of the world's poor from their poverty.

«Evidence now shows that the increases in these gases very likely (> 90 percent chance) account for most of the Earth's warming over the past 50 years.»

• Over $ 1 million to the Cato Institute, which disputes the scientific evidence behind global warming, questions the rationale for taking climate action, and has been heavily involved in spinning the recent ClimateGate story.

The WGI contribution to the TAR — Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis — found, «In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.»