Sentences with phrase «with significant global warming»

Methane is both an energy commodity itself and an intense climate pollutant with significant global warming impact.

Not exact matches

With Arctic temperatures warming twice as fast as the global average, scientists estimate thawing permafrost could release large amounts of carbon into the atmosphere through the end of the century with significant climate impaWith Arctic temperatures warming twice as fast as the global average, scientists estimate thawing permafrost could release large amounts of carbon into the atmosphere through the end of the century with significant climate impawith significant climate impacts.

Changes in N2 fixation due to global warming will alter N input to arctic ecosystems with significant consequences for plant growth.

The trend in these responses changed course last year, with slightly fewer Americans saying global warming would have a significant effect in their lifetimes.

Researchers charge global warming with projected significant increases in the frequency of both extreme precipitation and landfalling atmospheric rivers

Since 1950, the volcanic forcing has been negative due to a few significant eruptions, and has offset the modestly positive solar forcing, such that the net natural external forcing contribution to global warming over the past 50 years is approximately zero (more specifically, the authors estimate the natural forcing contribution since 1950 at -10 to +13 %, with a most likely value of 1 %).

There are significant questions about the robustness of the numbers at the heart of the new report estimating more than 300,000 deaths are already being caused each year by global warming, with nearly twice that number possible by 2030.

Climate changes in past centuries were significant in some parts of the world, but they were often opposite (e.g. warm vs. cold) in different regions at any given time, in sharp contrast with the global synchrony of 20th century warming.

Thus it appears that, provided further satellite cloud data confirms the cosmic ray flux low cloud seeding hypothesis, and no other factors were involved over the past 150 years (e.g., variability of other cloud layers) then there is a potential for solar activity induced changes in cloudiness and irradiance to account for a significant part of the global warming experienced during the 20th century, with the possible exception of the last two decades.

I often hear nuclear advocates proclaiming that «nuclear is THE solution to global warming» and that «no one can be serious about dealing with global warming if they don't support expanded use of nuclear power» but I have never heard any nuclear advocate lay out a plan showing how many nuclear power plants would have to be built in what period of time to have a significant impact on GHG emissions.

The earth has had significant Global Warming for some 20,000 years now... The only real argument is to the degree that mans activity has augmented that... We just came out of one - point - five - million years of continuous glaciation with sheets of two mile thick ice down past the 44th parallel... I will cheerfully deal with warming issues over that, anyWarming for some 20,000 years now... The only real argument is to the degree that mans activity has augmented that... We just came out of one - point - five - million years of continuous glaciation with sheets of two mile thick ice down past the 44th parallel... I will cheerfully deal with warming issues over that, anywarming issues over that, any day...

So after all this blather from me, I conclude rather hurredly — I believe I have demonstrated that any proposed BNO, any big natural oscillation with a 60 - odd year period, has no evidential basis as a significant contributor to recent global warming and that BNO remains nought but hypothetical conjecture.

The archive shows only scattered uses of «global warming» (and little more for «climate change») into the 1970s, with a significant rise for «global warming» after 1975.

Beyond that we can conclude (with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its 2013 report) that it is extremely likely that significant global warming is coming in our lifetimes.

In particular, the authors find fault with IPCC's conclusions relating to human activities being the primary cause of recent global warming, claiming, contrary to significant evidence that they tend to ignore, that the comparatively small influences of natural changes in solar radiation are dominating the influences of the much larger effects of changes in the atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations on the global energy balance.

Now if someone were to dsay, as Judith clearly did not although she had many opportunities to do so, that «concurrent with warming of our oceans there has been a relatively short - term hiatus in the trend of significant increase in global surface temperatures,» then I would not have a problem with the logic.

Interestingly, the paper «Climate Trends and Global food production since 1980» (Lobell, Schlenker, Costa - Roberts, in Sciencexpress, 5 May, Science 1204531) confirms my finding of the absence of climate change in the USA: «A notable exception to the [global] warming pattern is the United States, which produces c. 40 % of global maize and soybean and experienced a slight cooling over the period... the country with largest overall share of crop production (United States) showed no [adverse] effect due to the lack of significant climate trends&rGlobal food production since 1980» (Lobell, Schlenker, Costa - Roberts, in Sciencexpress, 5 May, Science 1204531) confirms my finding of the absence of climate change in the USA: «A notable exception to the [global] warming pattern is the United States, which produces c. 40 % of global maize and soybean and experienced a slight cooling over the period... the country with largest overall share of crop production (United States) showed no [adverse] effect due to the lack of significant climate trends&rglobal] warming pattern is the United States, which produces c. 40 % of global maize and soybean and experienced a slight cooling over the period... the country with largest overall share of crop production (United States) showed no [adverse] effect due to the lack of significant climate trends&rglobal maize and soybean and experienced a slight cooling over the period... the country with largest overall share of crop production (United States) showed no [adverse] effect due to the lack of significant climate trends».

On the other hand, despite the overwhelming evidence that global warming will transform the Earth's climate for centuries, with fearful consequences for human health and wellbeing (not to mention the survival of many species and ecosystems), the world can not agree to significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions because of concerns about the effects on economic growth.

This has been discussed on this very site, with a humorous example of its flaws being that applying it to a global data set (GHCN) instead of just one for the United States reverses the results, finding that adjustments reduce global warming by a significant amount.

On the other hand; global warming has a number of significant effects on the environment; including the rising sea levels, melting ices, and lately being associated with possibility to cause stronger Hurricane.

The hypothesis then is that multidecadal climate has only two significant components: the sawtooth, whatever its origins, and warming that can be accounted for 99.98 % by the AHH law as measured by the R2 of its fit to observed global warming (and could be brought even closer to 1 with a good story for MRES).

We don't get any closer to science by denying the significant possibility that we are causing significantly adverse changes in climate than we do by the ridiculous assertion that we understand the chaotic complexity of climate well enough to say with certainty how many parts per millions of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will lead to how many degrees of global warming.

Scientists proposing catastrophic majority anthropogenic global warming models (a.k.a. «Climate change») bear the burden of proof of providing clear robust evidence supporting validated model predictions of anthropogenic warming with strong significant differences from this climatic null hypothesis.

Your graph of the Gallup Poll question as to when the effects of global warming will happen is consistent with the belief that the effects of global warming will not be significant.

The significant increase in the frequency and the intensity of warm El Niño events between 1976 and 2007 were partly responsible for the glacier depletion process, combined with global warming.

And finally, we will discuss strategies to reduce forces other than CO2 that are potent contributors to global warming, yet can be reduced quickly and with significant near - term benefits while buying the world time to reduce CO2 emissions.

In one method, a statistical analysis of observational records was performed (using the KNMI Climate Explorer) to compare this summer's heat with summers during the early part of the century, before global warming played a significant role in our climate.

Perhaps Mr. Steele's strongest point is that the obsession with Global Warming will have an unfair impact on funding for local environmental projects as these efforts have had a significant and direct impact on the survival of plant and animal species.

KR asks the correct question finally, as to what we would do if human CO2 production was the cause of significant global warming with significant adverse effects.

Global average temperature will rise when a significant part of the globe warms with the next El Nino.

In this context, for the Administration to have released a U.S. Climate Action Report with a chapter on climate change impacts that identified a range of likely adverse consequences, based on scientific reports including the National Assessment, could rightly be seen as an anomaly and appeared to be seen as a significant political error by Administration allies dedicated to denying the reality of human - induced global warming as a significant problem.

As a question put to leading climate scientist Phil Jones it demonstrates that whoever composed that particular question knew that «statistically - significant «is a technical term requiring a technically correct answer, knew that the period was too short to allow an unequivocal answer, knew that the general public would equate «no statistically significant global warming» with no real warming.

Based on previously reported analysis of the observations and modelling studies this is neither inconsistent with a warming planet nor unexpected; and computation of global temperature trends over longer periods does exhibit statistically significant warming.

«In a clear, understandable manner that a high school graduate with a few general science courses could understand, Climate Change Reconsidered effectively rebuts the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report that carbon dioxide due to human activity causes significant global warming.

Even with the uncertainties, the models still indicate significant global warming during this century.

Nitrogen fertilizers represent one of the largest sources of GHG emissions from global agricultural production resulting in significant emissions of nitrous oxide (N2O), a GHG with approximately 300 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide (CO2).

After no significant global warming for some 20 + years, the «elites» are finally being embarrassed by the empirical evidence, which doesn't comport with their favorite unicorn science - fantasy.

This result is broadly consistent with the survey performed by Doran & Zimmerman in 2009, which found that 97 % of climate scientists agreed that humans are causing significant global warming.

I can certainly understand why those who do not have as clear an understanding of the climate system as Jim Hansen does would want to be more ambivalent with respect to advocating action to counteract global warming since, this has very significant economic implications.

In a piece published on «Watts Up With That» Lindzen says «There has been no warming since 1997 and no statistically significant warming since 1995» and in this piece for Quadrant he gives a variation, saying «has been no statistically significant net global warming for the last fourteen years» and «the fact that warming has ceased for the past fourteen years is acknowledged».

N2O is a significant global warmer, with a 100 - year global warming potential of 296 (carbon dioxide's GWP is 1).

From the paper: «The results also 1) reveal a significant level of coupling between ocean and land temperatures that remains even after the effects of ENSO and volcanic eruptions have been removed; 2) serve to highlight the improvements in the quality of the time series of global - mean land temperatures with the increase in the areal coverage of the station network from 1951 onward; and 3) yield a residual time series in which the signature of anthropogenically induced global warming is more prominent.»

For this article, a statistically - significant global warming means that the linear trend (slope of the trend line) is likely greater than zero with 95 % statistical confidence (i.e. the 95 % error bars do not include a possible 0.0 or negative temperature degree slope).

The action is «a significant acknowledgement of what global warming is doing to the Arctic ice,» said Kassie Siegel, an attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity in Joshua Tree, California.

«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.

(The only one I can think of, by the only really solidly qualified contrarian, Lindzen, who also claimed that tobacco wasn't linked to lung cancer, came up with an Iris theory that has been thoroughly repudiated (recent studies have in fact continued to strongly show increased atmospheric moisture), but his theory of a significant enough decrease to keep the earth from significantly warming at the same time this radical shift toward lack of global cloud cover (and far more drought everywhere?)

There is also this fact which is becoming statistically highly significant I don't believe it has anything to do with «global warming» (because the met office UK has admitted no significant warming for 15 years now):

«Sure, they'll probably try to confuse us with trick questions: Like why, apart from natural 1998 and 2015 El Nino spikes, satellites haven't recorded any statistically significant global warming for nearly two decades; why sea levels have been rising at a constant rate of 7 inches per century without acceleration; and why no category 3 - 5 hurricanes have struck the U.S. coast since October 2005 — a record lull since 1900.

«All 18 periods of significant climate changes found during the last 7,500 years were entirely caused by corresponding quasi-bicentennial variations of [total solar irradiance] together with the subsequent feedback effects, which always control and totally determine cyclic mechanism of climatic changes from global warming to Little Ice Age.»

This is in strong contrast with the current position of the US National Academy of Sciences:»... there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring... It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities... The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action.»