Sentences with phrase «global warming hypothesis in»

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.

This means that if the GCR - warming hypothesis is correct, this increase in GCRs should actually be causing global cooling over the past five decades, and particularly cold temperatures in recent years.

A better approach might be, «What do you need to see in terms of evidence over the next few years to make you more likely to believe the Global Warming hypothesis?»

Mixing Politics and Science in Testing the Hypothesis That Greenhouse Warming Is Causing a Global Increase in Hurricane Intensity

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.

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.

Judith Curry and colleagues have an interesting (and possibly provocative) article, «Mixing Politics and Science in Testing the Hypothesis That Greenhouse Warming Is Causing a Global Increase in Hurricane Intensity» in the latest issue of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (BAMS).

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.

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski — world - renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research — says the U.N. «based its global - warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false.»

Finally, given the limitations of climate science (one Earth and all) they should describe what they would consider convincing evidence in favor of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis.

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 think the inflation would be a consequence of that fact that (except for some things), in so far as the efficient market hypothesis applies, we would be operating optimally now except for global warming and ocean acidification; applying the tax pulls us away from that optimum, the economy will then not be as efficient (ignoring externalities); but we should want to do this because the economy is now more efficient when including the externalities.

This is not meant to imply that scientist can not inform society of the scientifically supported consequence if a particular course of action (e.g., global warming) but if this is to remain in the sphere of science and not advocacy, then the hypotheses must remain falsifiable.

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.

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.

So, why should anyone believe in the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming when there has hardly been enough warming to melt a popsicle?

Your hypothesis that the record of global mean temperatures might have been affected by the odd warm hour on a spring day here and there has a very low probability of being correct, given the vast amount of data that goes into the global mean, from stations in all pats of the world (from the fully dark Antarctic winter days to the fully illuminated Arctic summers, desert and equatorial forest sites etc etc).

Indeed, arrayed against the arcane burlesque of the United Nations IPCC with its politically selected 2500 Scientists, of which a core group of 600 exists, and a relatively small number of mediocre «scientists» here and there across the American landscape who have suddenly found notoriety or grant money in the global warming cause, are 31,072 + legitimate and viable scientists (of which I am one) who signed the American Petition Project declaring the Global Warming Hypothesis bogus found here, here andglobal warming cause, are 31,072 + legitimate and viable scientists (of which I am one) who signed the American Petition Project declaring the Global Warming Hypothesis bogus found here, here anwarming cause, are 31,072 + legitimate and viable scientists (of which I am one) who signed the American Petition Project declaring the Global Warming Hypothesis bogus found here, here andGlobal Warming Hypothesis bogus found here, here anWarming Hypothesis bogus found here, here and here.

In the main text of the paper he says «Given that global warming is «unequivocal», and is «very likely» due to human activities to quote the 2007 IPCC report, the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence.»

The IPCC actually cites measurements of stratospheric cooling as evidence against the hypothesis that global warming would be caused by increased solar activity, as in such case the entire atmosphere would have to show a warming trend, including the stratosphere.

The new report — the first of three comprehensive studies to come out this year — makes one of the strongest claims yet in support of the hypothesis that human activity, namely the relentless pumping of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, is what's behind climate change — an effect climate scientists refer to as anthropogenic global warming.

- Finally I'd address the duplicity (if I may call it that) in Trenberths statement: «Given that global warming is «unequivocal», to quote the 2007 IPCC report, the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence.

The «null hypothesis» so far could be stated, «it has warmed since the modern temperature record started in 1850, ergo: global warming is real».

In his abstract he says «Given that global warming is unequivocal, the null hypothesis should be that all weather events are affected by global warming...» This may not be true but it makes certain amount of sense.

I explicitly adopted the «multiple working hypotheses» strategy in my paper Mixing Politics and Science in Testing the Hypothesis That Greenhouse Warming Is Causing a Global Increase in Hurricane Intensity.

Got funding in 2000, the same year they published Singer's article, «Cool Planet, Hot Politics: The next president needs to know that the global warming hypothesis, though politically powerful, is scientifically weak.

Like the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis (AGW), research continued in spite of media and political acceptance.

In attribution studies, changing the null hypothesis from «there is no anthropogenic global warming effect» to one that recognizes the changed environment can completely change the outcome (Trenberth 2011b).

So we are led to the conclusion that either the hypothesis of carbon dioxide induced global warming holds but its effects are being modified in what seems to be an improbable though not impossible way, or, and this really is heresy according to some, the working hypothesis does not stand the test of data.

Judith is right, «warmest» year is much less important than would be (but missing) validation of IPCC conclusion (actually hypothesis begging testing) that «the global mean temperatures will > 2oC in the next 100 years.

In this report, Shell's message was clear: although it is «not possible to dismiss the global warming hypothesis as scientifically unsound... any policy measure should take into account explicitly the weaknesses in the scientific case.&raquIn this report, Shell's message was clear: although it is «not possible to dismiss the global warming hypothesis as scientifically unsound... any policy measure should take into account explicitly the weaknesses in the scientific case.&raquin the scientific case.»

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

Vaughan Pratt: An intriguing feature of the stadium - wave hypothesis is that it purports to explain a 15 - year phenomenon, namely the recent hiatus in global warming, in terms of 300 years worth of data.

An intriguing feature of the stadium - wave hypothesis is that it purports to explain a 15 - year phenomenon, namely the recent hiatus in global warming, in terms of 300 years worth of data.

The particularly striking flat portion of MRES is from 1860 to 1950, which is strong support for my point that global warming can already be observed starting in 1860 as shown in Figure 2, Observed Global Warming or OGW, and follows a curve that is in remarkable agreement with what the greenhouse effect hypothesis should prglobal warming can already be observed starting in 1860 as shown in Figure 2, Observed Global Warming or OGW, and follows a curve that is in remarkable agreement with what the greenhouse effect hypothesis should pwarming can already be observed starting in 1860 as shown in Figure 2, Observed Global Warming or OGW, and follows a curve that is in remarkable agreement with what the greenhouse effect hypothesis should prGlobal Warming or OGW, and follows a curve that is in remarkable agreement with what the greenhouse effect hypothesis should pWarming or OGW, and follows a curve that is in remarkable agreement with what the greenhouse effect hypothesis should predict.

Had the AGW hypothesis been subject to the proper scientific method, the failure to substantiate this fundamental premise (of increased warming in the troposphere over the Equator) would have rendered the man - made global warming theory invalid.

Not everyone who subscribes to the current global warming hypothesis wants success in Copenhagen, though.

Observational records show that anthropogenic - influenced climate change has already had a profound impact on global and U.S. warm season climate over the past 30 years, and there is increasing contrast between geographic regions that are climatologically wet and dry - the hypothesis that the «wet gets wetter, dry gets drier» is seen in a new paper by Chang et al..

At the very moment President Obama is committing the U.S. to a leadership role in combating so - called «global warming» and «climate change,» scientists are breaking with the hypothesis that temperatures around the world are on a steady increase for the foreseeable future.

The hypothesis implicit though rarely explicitly stated in the IPCC's work is that dangerous global warming is resulting, or will result, from human - related greenhouse gas emissions.

«I am very disappointed at the downward path the AMS has been following for the last 10 - 15 years in its advocacy of the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) hypothesis.

The value of measuring atmospheric temperatures globally becomes clear when we recall that the untested hypothesis behind global warming projects that greenhouse gas warming in the atmosphere will cause the surface to warm by 6 degrees Fahrenheit (with a probable error of plus or minus 3 degrees).

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.

The climate change or global warming hypothesis is just that... a hypothesis and not a theory, it can never be lifted above a hypothesis because it can't be shown in any type of true lab experiment as repeatable, not once and surely not twice.

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

«Deniers» get ridiculed but the most vicious comments seem to be reserved for those who technically agree with the global warming hypothesis but are not in lock step with the most extreme forecasts.

What is often forgotten is that the UN established the IPCC in 1988 only because of the then raging scientific debate over the veracity of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis.