Sentences with phrase «with anthropogenic global warming»

2) The current faster strengthening of hurricanes has NOTHING to do with anthropogenic global warming (AGW), but rather it depends on the AMO phase.

If we can power 50 - 65 % of the globe on renewable and use carbon capture and other cleaner methods with what we have then we can do very well with the anthropogenic global warming issue.

The net effect of the remodelling is to create statistically significant warming of 0.7 °C in the ACORN - SAT mean temperature series for Rutherglen: in general agreement with anthropogenic global warming theory.

Of course this does not accord with anthropogenic global warming theory.

[3] In this sense, especially in the context of environmental policy, the term climate change has become synonymous with anthropogenic global warming.

If 49 % of climate scientists disagreed with anthropogenic global warming, then how would we know the other 51 % is correct?

The public is receptive to an expose of the many mythologies and false claims associated with anthropogenic global warming and are welcoming an authoritative description of planet Earth and its ever - changing climate in readable language.

The coupling of the sea level rise problem and its solutions with anthropogenic global warming and emissions reductions is unfortunate.

And in many locations, even if were somehow successful at reducing / eliminating the component of sea level rise associated with anthropogenic global warming, this would address only a small fraction of local sea level rise in many of the most vulnerable locations.

IF carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels only stayed in the atmosphere a few years, say five years, then there may not be quite the urgency currently associated with anthropogenic global warming.

The skeptics» press, especially as echoed in Crichton's State of Fear states that the Kilimanjaro retreat can have nothing to do with anthropogenic global warming, because it began in the 1880's, before any appreciable CO2 response is expected.

Not exact matches

«This would be consistent with the elite cues hypothesis, in that we would expect political leaders who deny anthropogenic global warming to claim victory during unseasonably cold periods or amplify their denial during unseasonably warm periods that invite challenge to their worldview,» says Bohr.

CLIMATE SKEPTIC: a person who has not yet been convinced anthropogenic global warming is happening, but is open to being convinced if presented with the evidence.

That means that a climate with a lot of CO2 warming partially offset in the global average by a lot of regional aerosol cooling is still a very different climate than one with no anthropogenic aerosols and less CO2.

Far from just inverting the burden of proof, with IPCC's statements, Trenberth has to show far beyond just «statistical evidence» of «anthropogenic global warming» AGW.

I think your discussion about anthropogenic global warming is a little «off topic» in this blog entry, which is about due diligence in climate science, but with the permission of those running the blog, I'd like to explore it a little further.

You can be certain that various anti-science, anthropogenic global warming denialist web blogs and op ed writers (with no scientific background) will take this study and trumpet it from the hills, completely out of context in order to continue to be disingenuous and to purposely mislead people.

Contemporary global mean sea level rise will continue over many centuries as a consequence of anthropogenic climate warming, with the detailed pace and final amount of rise depending substantially on future greenhouse gas emissions.

Third, with our ∼ 1 °C scenario it is more likely that the biosphere and soil will be able to sequester a substantial portion of the anthropogenic fossil fuel CO2 carbon than in the case of 2 °C or more global warming.

In contrast, chemistry modeling and paleoclimate records [222] show that trace gases increase with global warming, making it unlikely that overall atmospheric CH4 will decrease even if a decrease is achieved in anthropogenic CH4 sources.

Rather, «land surface warming» is one of more than ten bricks supporting «global warming»; and with global warming established, there is a whole other set of bricks supporting «anthropogenic global warming».

When faced with a choice between a) and b), I respond: «I can't choose, since i think the most likely split between natural and anthropogenic causes to recent global warming is about 50 - 50 ′.

However, with a peer review system, it is not possible to take the second option and as a result, the dangers of anthropogenic global warming have gone by default.

CLIMATE SKEPTIC: a person who has not yet been convinced anthropogenic global warming is happening, but is open to being convinced if presented with the evidence.

It's clear this is already happening and we can expect more op - eds in major newspapers from the likes of George Will, more full - page adverts from industry - funded propaganda mills masquerading as «conservative» think tanks, and more comments posted on every blog where global warming is discussed, denouncing the «vast liberal hoax» of anthropogenic global warming, because, you know, it's been proved that the earth isn't warming, and if it is, it has nothing to do with fossil fuels.

Plus, you seem to be confusing «AGW theory» (anthropogenic global warming) with «the greenhouse effect.»

Secondly, while there are indeed lots of other unsustainable human impacts on ecosystems and the Earth's biosphere generally, the rapidly escalating effects of anthropogenic global warming threaten to overwhelm all of those other problems in the very near future, with devastating impacts not only for human civilization and the human species, but for all life on Earth, for a long, long time.

The site is not for everybody; certainly people who want to argue the question of whether AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is or isn't a problem will find nothing to engage with on our site.

Sorry, yet another correction: The mass resignation was in response to publication of a prior paper disputing anthropogenic global warming, although the editor of this latter paper was the same as with MMichaels.

The author shows this lack with his statement «For which, by the way, there is no natural explanation, and the best estimate for the anthropogenic share of global warming since 1950 is 110 percent — more on this in my previous post.»

If one of these happens, it should not be taken as evidence that there is something fundamentally wrong with our understanding of the causes of anthropogenic global warming.

Surely you have more to present than that to support your claim, ``... the duration of the current positve phase of the PDO over the last 30 years... can very much be linked (albeit not with absolute certainty) to anthropogenic global warming.»

I reject the idea that it is somehow inappropriate to acknowledge that catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is not only possible but plausible if we continue with anything close to business as usual consumption of fossil fuels and the other activities that are contributing to ever - increasing GHG emissions.

It claims to be the first of its kind, but there have been one or two others like it, such as the now universally - discredited Stern Report, which used the same unscientific rhetoric of «market failure» together with overstatements of the imagined consequences of anthropogenic «global warming» as a substitute for rigorous economic analysis.

In a posting to the APS forum, editor Jeffrey Marque explains,» There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution.»

«Since the AR4, there is some new limited direct evidence for an anthropogenic influence on extreme precipitation, including a formal detection and attribution study and indirect evidence that extreme precipitation would be expected to have increased given the evidence of anthropogenic influence on various aspects of the global hydrological cycle and high confidence that the intensity of extreme precipitation events will increase with warming, at a rate well exceeding that of the mean precipitation..

The point is that to argue that «there is no such thing as global terrorism», or that «there is no such thing as global warming» is to fail to take issue with the idea that evidence of global terrorism or anthropogenic global warming is sufficient argument for the execution of the «War on Terror», or for «drastic action'to mitigate climate change.

«there is no such thing as global terrorism», or that «there is no such thing as global warming» is to fail to take issue with the idea that evidence of global terrorism or anthropogenic global warming is sufficient argument for the execution of the «War on Terror», or for «drastic action'to mitigate climate change.

• Greenhouse gases contributed a global mean surface warming likely to be in the range of 0.5 °C to 1.3 °C over the period 1951 to 2010, with the contributions from other anthropogenic forcings, including the cooling effect of aerosols, likely to be in the range of − 0.6 °C to 0.1 °C.

«I am not convinced with the arguments of the group promoting global warming of an anthropogenic nature,» Zharkova told The Washington Post.

this represents a serious potential threat to humanity and our environment from anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the range of 1.8 °C to 6.4 °C by the end of this century with increase in global sea level of up to 0.59 meters [AR4 WGI SPM, p. 13]

3) Agenda 3.1) Trenberth's unstated agenda and assertion is that: Anthropogenic global warming will cause catastrophic climate change with great suffering and massive economic loss.

In both my personal experience of peer review and in discussions with medical colleagues on this subject, I know — and, boy, BillD really ought to know — how the peer review process can get screwed up by the sorts of concerted and deliberately deceptive measures practiced by the anthropogenic global warming cabal that was cataclysmically de-pantsed by the Climategate revelations, particularly with regard to the insights provided by the e-mails of the C.R.U. correspondents.

Your quoted passage does not say that either, it is quite consistent with the IPCC reports and everything I have learned about climate and is not a contradiction of anthropogenic global warming occurring today.

In response to commenters wondering how we obtained our results when Cook had not made his data available, in fact he did release a data file listing the titles and authors of all 11,944 abstracts in his survey, together with his or his co-authors» assessment of what he called their «level of endorsement» of the «consensus» that most of the global warming since 1950 was anthropogenic.

So you answer that «the climate system is profoundly complex with various feedbacks and time lags that come into play, and can not be explained in term's of someone's simplistic expectations,» as an answer on the question why «this melting really was an indicator of Anthropogenic Global Warming»?

With politicians being convinced that Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) was an imminent catastrophic threat, lobbyists launched campaigns to favor anything that would purportedly reduce carbon dioxide.

Contemporary global mean sea level rise will continue over many centuries as a consequence of anthropogenic climate warming, with the detailed pace and final amount of rise depending substantially on future greenhouse gas emissions.

But the IPCC concerns itself with consideration of anthropogenic (i.e. man - made) global warming (AGW) as a result of emissions of greenhouse gases (notably carbon dioxide, CO2) from human activities.

I'm going to venture out on a limb here and say that the Institute of Economic Analysis is primarily concerned about the economic problems with combatting anthropogenic global warming.