Claim: “We indicated 23 years ago — in our 1994 Nature article — that climate models had the atmosphere’s sensitivity to CO2 much too high,” Christy said in a statement.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 1
Passage: The sensitivity of temperature to atmospheric gasses, most notably CO 2, is often expressed in terms of the change in temperature per doubling of the concentration of the gas.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 1
Passage: In his first paper on the matter, he estimated that global temperature would rise by around 5 to 6 °C (9.0 to 10.8 °F) if the quantity of CO 2 was doubled.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 1
Passage: For constant humidity they computed a climate sensitivity of 2.3 °C per doubling of CO2 (which they rounded to 2, the value most often quoted from their work, in the abstract of the paper).

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: Keeling’s Tellus article of 1960 presented the first monthly CO 2 records from Mauna Loa and Antarctica (1957 to 1960), finding a “distinct seasonal cycle…and possibly, a worldwide rise in CO2 from year to year.” By the 1970s, it was well established that the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide was ongoing and due to anthropogenic emissions.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: For over a decade, one aspect of the climate change story seemed to show a significant difference between models and observations.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: "How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?".

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: Climate sensitivity is the globally averaged temperature change in response to changes in radiative forcing, which can occur, for instance, due to increased levels of carbon dioxide (CO 2).

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: Climate sensitivity is defined as the amount of global average surface warming following a doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate (considerable progress since the 1990 report in distinguishing between natural and anthropogenic influences on climate, because of: including aerosols; coupled models; pattern-based studies) Climate is expected to continue to change in the future (increasing realism of simulations increases confidence; important uncertainties remain but are taken into account in the range of model projections) There are still many uncertainties (estimates of future emissions and biogeochemical cycling; models; instrument data for model testing, assessment of variability, and detection studies) The Third Assessment Report (TAR) was completed in 2001 and consists of four reports, three of them from its Working Groups: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability Working Group III: Mitigation Synthesis Report A number of the TAR's conclusions are given quantitative estimates of how probable it is that they are correct, e.g., greater than 66% probability of being correct.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: In 2000, Hansen advanced an alternative view of global warming over the last 100 years, arguing that during that time frame the negative forcing via aerosols and the positive forcing via carbon dioxide (CO 2) largely balanced each other out, and that the 0.74±0.18 °C net rise in average global temperatures could mostly be explained by greenhouse gases other than carbon dioxide, such as methane and chlorofluorocarbons.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: The paper was criticized by numerous climate scientists.