Sentences with phrase «co2 global warming hypothesis»

Irrelevance of the CO2 global warming hypothesis?

Not exact matches

On the possibility of a changing cloud cover «forcing» global warming in recent times (assuming we can just ignore the CO2 physics and current literature on feedbacks, since I don't see a contradiction between an internal radiative forcing and positive feedbacks), one would have to explain a few things, like why the diurnal temperature gradient would decrease with a planet being warmed by decreased albedo... why the stratosphere should cool... why winters should warm faster than summers... essentially the same questions that come with the cosmic ray hypothesis.

There is very little science behind the claim that a doubling of CO2 will cause one degree C. of warming — which even if true, adds up to a mere one degree C. of global warming in about 200 years, assuming CO2 levels increase 2 ppm per year, and the hypothesis is correct.

That's a hypothesis and, arguably, a reasonable ASSOCIATION, but cause and effect has hardly been established, and I understand it's not clear whether global warming causes an increase in CO2, or vice versa.

I'm simply questioning the validity of the hypothesis offered by so many climate scientists that CO2 emissions from fossil fuels are a significant factor in global warming, to the extent that they must be drastically reduced.

Victor (243): I'm simply questioning the validity of the hypothesis offered by so many climate scientists that CO2 emissions from fossil fuels are a significant factor in global warming, to the extent that they must be drastically reduced.

CO2 Science misrepresents Doran's study as a «major blow to the CO2 - induced global warming hypothesis... many a climate alarmist jumped on the global warming bandwagon... however, the bottom began to fall out of the poorly constructed bandwagon, as the evidentiary glue that held it together began to weaken.»

Died - in - the - wool believers in global warming will argue that coal will produce CO2 and contribute to global warming but the following two points will undermine their arguments without challenging the AGW hypothesis.

Veizer's alternative hypothesis for 20th century global warming does appear to be: the warming was caused by a «celestial driver» (i.e., a change in solar activity — despite the lack of observed trend), and it is this warming which has increased the CO2 concentration, not the other way round.

CAGW or Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is the acronym used (mostly by those that don't support taking immediate action on climate change) for the theory (or collection of hypotheses) that attribute most of the observed modern warming to human activities and warn that continuing similar activities (mostly emitting CO2) could result in warming that is dangerous to both civilization and a number of ecosWarming is the acronym used (mostly by those that don't support taking immediate action on climate change) for the theory (or collection of hypotheses) that attribute most of the observed modern warming to human activities and warn that continuing similar activities (mostly emitting CO2) could result in warming that is dangerous to both civilization and a number of ecoswarming to human activities and warn that continuing similar activities (mostly emitting CO2) could result in warming that is dangerous to both civilization and a number of ecoswarming that is dangerous to both civilization and a number of ecosystems.

AGW [actually, the AGW / CO2 / global warming hypothesis] challenges the accepted theory of natural climate variability.

The AGW hypothesis is that human emissions of CO2 will lead to catastrophic global warming, disappearing sea ice, rising sea levels, and numerous other catastrophic events.

This is, by far, much less than «prophesized» by the IPCC's «global warming» hypothesis for the recorded period, that was characterized by massive CO2 emissions to the atmosphere.

The IPCC hypothesis is that human produced CO2 is the main driver of climate change (global warming).

And how much longer will it be before the public finally rejects the bureaucrat - science quacks and political / institutional / celebrity elites who continue to push the failed CO2 - based anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis, whose real political agenda is not science related whatsoever.

... The Truth About Coal, China, and Smog... Environmental extremists, especially those wedded to the CO2 hypothesis for global warming, have repeatedly reported on China's smog and how coal - fired power plants were to blame.

If the hypothesis is that CO2 does not cause global warming, then this past eight - year trend DOES support this hypothesis.

And the closer the correlation found if any (between CO2 and global warming), the more plausible the hypothesis of the joint effect of CO2 and H2O.

We have far more data about increasing CO2 than increasing water vapor, hence if we want to test this hypothesis by looking for a correlation between global warming and the combined effect of CO2 and H2O, a correlation with CO2 alone is more feasible than one involving water vapour.

One hypothesis about global warming is that it is the result largely of increases in CO2 and H2O in some proportion as yet undetermined.

Conclusion: Those stubborn climate facts are not kind to the ever - fading, CO2 - induced global warming hypothesis.

The Japanese evidence also disproves the often - cited hypothesis that Siberia and other areas of northern Russia were natural vents for large scale CO2 outgassing, exacerbating global warming fears.

So, the scientific thread of albedo prediction from optical depth, Van de Hulst, Sagan and Pollack [Venusian runaway global warming], Lacis and Hansen is wrong., the crutch for the high CO2 - AGW hypothesis is taken away, CO2 probably loses AGW monopoly via «polluted cloud heating».

Among the many measurements needed to give credence to the man - made global warming hypothesis are the global sources, uptakes, and distributions of CO2.

The scientific theory of global warming due to IR absorption and scattering due to CO2 is a mere hypothesis: this is false, as over 100 years of research into how the climate works and the physical properties of CO2 has shown.

Most climate hobgoblins in Canada come through the Federal Government, particularly Environment Canada (EC) with the singular objective of proving the hypothesis that human production of CO2 is causing global warming.

AGW is a hypothesis that makes sense, namely: — GHGs absorb outgoing radiation, thereby contributing to warming (GH theory)-- CO2 is a GHG (as is water vapor plus some minor GHGs)-- CO2 concentrations have risen (mostly since measurements started in Mauna Loa in 1959)-- global temperature has risen since 1850 (in ~ 30 - year warming cycles with ~ 30 - year cycles of slight cooling in between)-- humans emit CO2 and other GHGs — ergo, human GHG emissions have very likely been a major contributor to higher GHG concentrations, very likely contributing to the observed warming

What is required with to support the AGW hypothesis is testable, empirical evidence showing that human emissions of CO2 will cause runaway global warming.

Or do you mean people who disagree with the hypothesis that man made CO2 emissions will cause dangerous global warming?

My argument is not with the properties of Co2 itself, it's with the global warming hypothesis with respect to CCo2 itself, it's with the global warming hypothesis with respect to CO2CO2.

Summary: The observed shrinking of CO2's influence on global warming does not bode well for the future longevity of the AGW hypothesis.

Assuming three of the four inches are due to anthropogenic CO2, then the storm surge was 1.8 % higher due to global warming (taking 14 feet as the storm surge maximum, a number on which there is little agreement, confirming my hypothesis above that we are arguing in the noise).

Governments upbraided in the article for inaction created the false hypothesis that human CO2 caused global warming / climate change.

The CAGW global warming hypothesis is rather straightforward: increasing atmospheric CO2 would warm the world in an accelerating, out - of - control manner.

(Revised September 23, 2016 by addition of a new final section by Dr. James Wallace) As discussed in my book, Environmentalism Gone Mad, two of the reasonable inferences from the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) hypothesis (the scientific basis for the world climate scare pushed by the United Nations and the Obama Administration) are that atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels should affect global temperatures, and that the resulting heat generated should be observable by a hot spot about 10 km over the trGlobal Warming (CAGW) hypothesis (the scientific basis for the world climate scare pushed by the United Nations and the Obama Administration) are that atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels should affect global temperatures, and that the resulting heat generated should be observable by a hot spot about 10 km over the trglobal temperatures, and that the resulting heat generated should be observable by a hot spot about 10 km over the tropics.

Summary: The expert consensus was wrong about global warming; the AGW hypothesis is without empirical evidence merit; climate science is not settled, nor will it be in near future; and climate change will continue regardless of CO2 emissions.

If there is no hotspot, then the IPCC hypothesis of CO2 caused global warming (AGW) is essentially proven false.

A key claim of the hypothesis known as anthropogenic global warming (AGW), is that human activities (particularly industry) are producing CO2 that is causing warming and climate change.

Their campaign depends on maintaining their fantasy world, which they do by defending their catastrophic anthropocentric global warming (CAGW) hypothesis, claiming that failure to reduce CO2 emissions will result in various climate / extreme weather catastrophes.

The enduring myth of «accelerating» is a leftover from earlier IPCC climate reports and the original AGW hypothesis that speculated greater levels of atmospheric CO2 would generate «runaway» global warming leading to a catastrophic «tipping point» climate change.

Instead, they present the hypothesis that global warming is caused by undersea geothermal activity, not CO2.

If one's hypothesis is correct about man - made global warming, then X amount of CO2 over time period Y should result in temperature Z.

I can do no more than refer you to Einstein's work, and later work by Feynman, and you will get an appreciation of why physicists who have not subscribed to the popular hysteria that is CO2 induced global warming, have nothing but contempt for the whole silly hypothesis.

«Unlike a decade ago, when few scientists dared express doubt that humanity's CO2 emissions are causing dangerous global warming, it seems now that not a week goes by without some leading expert condemning the hypothesis.

The hypothesis that global warming will resume is just as invalid as the hypothesis that CO2 caused global warming in the first place.

It is my contention (and that of many others) that in fact this is the default null hypothesis and until proponents of the anthropogenic global warming hyothesis come up with some better evidence to back up their claims of imminent dangerous warming driven by co2 and a water vapour feedback to its increasing levels, the null hypothesis is the best one we have.

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.

The article is part of a wider attack by creators and promoters of the hypothesis that CO2, especially the human portion, was causing global warming or climate change.

1) The hypothesis of manmade global warming by CO2 does not have a single piece of defendable science behind it.

However, the actual origin of the global warming / CO2 hypothesis is generally credited to Swedish physicist / chemist Svante Arrenhius, circa 1896.