Sentences with phrase «co2 warming predictions»

Not exact matches

By improving the understanding of how much radiation CO2 absorbs, uncertainties in modelling climate change will be reduced and more accurate predictions can be made about how much Earth is likely to warm over the next few decades.

Remember that direct greenhouse effect from CO2 is quite small; the predictions rely on positive feedback from other effects (particularly water vapour feedbacks, a far more significant greenhouse gas) to cause substantial warming.

If, for example, Big CO2 Inc. wanted to put a billion dollars down on global cooling, 2 things would happen — the web would be full of «sign up and take some money from Big CO2 Inc.» emails, and, more importantly, some of the people who think it's a slam dunk for global warming might temper their predictions just a bit because some clown put so much money down on the opposite outcome.

I would assume that a prediction of 3oC warming for 2x CO2 includes at least H2O feedbacks.

In Victor's delusion the scientists couldn't think of anything other than Co2 to blame the warming on, so predicted further warming and these predictions were then followed by a failure of further warming after the predictions were made.

A corollary of the prediction that Co2 would take up to 20 years to rise above the noise of natural variation is that natural variation could conceivable cause a «pause» of up to 20 years, and so the recent short period with a lack of warming is totally consistent with Hansen's predictions.

For 15 years the prediction of warming resulting from a doubling of CO2 has varied by 300 % from 1.5 to 4.5 K. For 15 years the climate modellers have been claiming it will take them 15 years to get the clouds and aerosols right.

Predictions of global warming are not «based on» doubling of CO2.

It appears the IPCC is also beginning to downplay its various positions / predictions RE CO2 centric Global Warming.

* «Princeton physicist Will Happer's WSJ op - ed: «Global warming models are wrong again»: The former federal official calls climate's «observed response» to more CO2 «not in good agreement with model predictions.»»

And you might recall that his March 27 Wall Street Journal op - ed «Global warming models are wrong again» called the climate's «observed response» to more CO2 «not in good agreement with model predictions.»

Can anyone here cogently explain the physical basis for the prediction that warming from CO2 would increase the frequency or strength of hurricanes?

Climate alarmism is not based on empirical observation; rather, it is entirely predicated on computer models that are manipulated to generate predictions of significant global warming as a result of increased concentrations of CO2.

Comparing model predictions of GHG - induced warming with recent natural temperature fluctuations also indicates the potential scale of man - made climate change.Early modelling experiments focused on the total long - term change resulting from a doubling of carbon dioxide (CO2) levels.

Difference between nighttime lows and daytime highs decreasing — no they aren't Warming of the planet since 1880 — same trend since LIA 40 % rise in Atmospheric CO2 since ~ 1800 — has little effect Underlying physics of the Greenhouse effect — you don't appear to understand them, and neither do modellers, which is why their predictions have been so wrong

I note that Hansen's 1988 predictions are a true test of the most important question in the global warming question — that of what is the climate / temperature sensitivity to increases / doubling of CO2 and other GHGs.

Well since the upward trend was well established, and his whole «CO2 causes global warming» theory would be falsified by any other result (constant or decreasing temperatures) it is hardly surprising that Hansen's models would produce predictions of increasing temperature.

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...

And by that, I don't mean computer models — I use computer models, and they are totally invalid at prediction — and I don't mean reports of «warming effects» unless you can show the mechanism that definitively links the cause to the effect, and shows that CO2 can be the only cause.

According to climate alarmists, the frequency and severity of this natural hazard should already be increasing in response to model - based predictions of CO2 - induced global warming.

By ignoring these two key parameters, you ended up with a GIGO prediction IMO — one that has exaggerated CO2 increase and warming by a factor of around 2:1 (and is thus off by around 2,000 millikelvins by 2100).

Global warming of 4C above today's level as you project would take an atmospheric CO2 concentration of around 1000 ppmv, at IPCC's mean ECS prediction.

The Global Warming Prediction Project consists of a bunch of gutless wonders, frightened to use any past historical data, preferring instead to concentrate on a flat period where there is no need to apply a long term forcing trend... such as CO2.

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».

It's also good to keep in mind that CO2 is beneficial; more CO2 is better; any small warming helped along by CO2 is more than offset by other factors, and the claim that CO2 is in any way bad is simply an unfounded presumption at this point, since the models» predictions have all turned out to be wrong in their predictions.

Most global warming predictions are based on fluctuations in CO2 levels and temperature that happened between a relatively recent series of ice ages, said DePaolo, who was not involved in the new study, which will appear in tomorrow's issue of the journal Science.

So you guys «persist» in the silly notion of CAGW, from 150 year granularity, in attempting to understand the relationship of CO2 to 1.5 degree global warming is all that's necessary for prediction using crappy models.

And his predictions are even worse:» The continuing planetary imbalance and the rapid increase of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel assure that global warming will continue on decadal time scales.»

On the other hand, it is fun to point out that according to the predictions made by the climate models that assume late 20th century warming WAS driven by CO2, their model HAS been falsified.

As the climatic empirical evidence kept growing though, it became obvious these models were atrocious at climate prediction, specifically due to their myopic reliance on CO2 as the principal global warming forcing.

If the Earth warms in line with CO2 predictions, then confidence in the current representation of solar effects will increase.

In contrast to the sophisticated climate model predictions of runaway («tipping point») global warming, in reality, real - world global warming, as measured by satellites, has disappeared for over 16 years despite the gargantuan increases in CO2 emissions... (Ramez Naam denies this)

The above chart (click to enlarge) depicts the robust and significant lowering of the IPCC's predictions regarding human CO2 - induced global warming.

-- Muller believes humans are changing climate with CO2 emissions — humans have been responsible for «most» of a 0.4 C warming since 1957, almost none of the warming before then — IPCC is in trouble due to sloppy science, exaggerated predictions; chairman will have to resign — the «Climategate» mails were not «hacked» — they were «leaked» by an insider — due to «hide the decline» deception, Muller will not read any future papers by Michael Mann — there has been no increase in hurricanes or tornadoes due to global warming — automobiles are insignificant in overall picture — China is the major CO2 producer, considerably more than USA today — # 1 priority for China is growth of economy — global warming is not considered important — China CO2 efficiency (GDP per ton CO2) is around one - fourth of USA today, has much room for improvement — China growth will make per capita CO2 emissions at same level as USA today by year 2040 — if it is «not profitable» it is «not sustainable» — US energy future depends on shale gas for automobiles; hydrogen will not be a factor — nor will electric cars, due to high cost — Muller is upbeat on nuclear (this was recorded pre-Fukushima)-- there has been no warming in the USA — Muller was not convinced of Hansen's GISS temperature record; hopes BEST will provide a better record.

The warming of the Arctic has become an important issue, because the prediction is that changes will be strongest and first noticeable in the Arctic and because of the undesirable environmental impact that might accompany the elevated atmospheric CO2 (2).

With consequences of global warming on our planet already changing our weather systems, predictions suggest our output of CO2 into the atmosphere will not peak until...

Clearly, the huge growth in CO2 levels has had zero global warming impact on the 5 - year temperature change over the last 18 years, contrary to the Democrats» «consensus» predictions.

The IPCC predicts, as its central estimate, 1.5 K warming by 2100 because of the CO2 we add this century, with another 0.6 K for «already - committed» warming and 0.7 K for warming from non-CO2 greenhouse gases: total 2.8 K (the mean of the predictions on all six emissions scenarios).

The Audubon Society similarly published Mysterious Moose Die - Offs Could be Linked to Global Warming and climate scientists like Michael Mann, who has hitched his scientific status to «dire predictions», wrongly connect declining moose populations to rising CO2.

As I see it, the prediction is, that if anthropogenic CO2 is a significant driver of global warming in recent times, and has continued to increase, then temperatures should have continued to increase in the last decade or so.

Here you go, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/06/010615071248.htm is just one published (and refuted) claim of the end of global warming made in 2001 covering a prediction of CO2 levels.

seeking this answer is what used to be called «science»; trying to explain why the prediction of continued accelerating global warming from the 52 % increase in CO2 emissions from fossil fuels since Hansen predicted this in 1988 has failed to materialize and trying to explain why the Earth has experienced no global warming for over a decade in spite of the 26 % increase in CO2 emissions from fossil fuels is what is funny

Based on land - surface temperatures, Africa does not appear to be affected by the «unprecedented» global warming due to the «unprecedented» global CO2 levels, which represents a catastrophic prediction failure by the IPPC and its climate models.

What the value of ΔT helps with, that is useful, is a prediction of the surface warming rate with added CO2.

He simply pulls prognostications out of his government - paid arse and fabricates a prediction out of out of whole cloth — i.e., global warming due to humanity's release of CO2 into the atmosphere in 10 years.

«Amazonian Tropical Forests Achieve Accelerated Growth Contrary To Climate Alarmist Predictions Main Reasearch Finds That Roman Warm Period Was Signifcantly Warmer Than Present, Pre-Human CO2»

«Even Climate Alarmist Models Reveal An 80 % CO2 Cut Abysmally Ineffective: By 2050, Warming Reduced By 0.05 °C; Sea Rise Reduced by 0.1» Main Climate Models: Why Do They Have Such A Terrible Prediction Record?

From direct observation we already know that the extreme predictions of CO2's impact on global temperature are highly unlikely given that about one - third of all our CO2 emissions have been discharged during the past 18 years and there has been no statistically significant warming.

«Observations since the UNFCCC was written 25 years ago show that warming from increased atmospheric CO2 will be benign — much less than initial model predictions,» says the petition.

Global warming is a prediction come true: it was predicted well over 100 years ago that increasing the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere would raise the Earth's temperature.