Sentences with phrase «warming predictions wrong»

Not exact matches

Some climate change deniers have taken encouragement from the pause, saying they show warming predictions are flawed, but Mann, a co-author on the study, notes that «there have been various explanations for why [the slowdown is happening], none of which involve climate models being fundamentally wrong.»

While RealClimate has called into question the soundness of the paper's quite narrow conclusions of discrepancy between model predictions and measurements of the relative rate of warming of different levels of the atmosphere over the tropics, this paper is being touted by the deniers as showing that the models are wrong to predict any warming at all, and that predictions of future warming and climate change can be entirely discounted.

* «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.»

Both our friend Bob Tisdale, and also the Global Warming Brigade, need to make predictions so that their ideas can be falsified if wrong.

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

The much embarrassing «Pause» continues to ignore the predictions of the wrong - way IPCC and government - funded climate «scientists» - you know, the «experts» who have been long predicting end - of - the - world global warming since the late 80's.

Utterly wrong: the computer climate models on which predictions of rapid warming from enhanced atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration cowdungare based «run hot,» simulating two to three times the warming actually observed over relevant periods

Akasofu's prediction is the least wrong of the contrarian predictions examined here, but with a 0.02 °C per decade cooling prediction between 2000 and 2012, has not matched the 0.06 °C per decade warming trend, despite the fact that according to Foster and Rahmstorf, natural climate influences have had an approximately 0.1 °C cooling effect since 2000.

Observational data show clearly that the predictions of unacceptable warming caused by more carbon dioxide are wrong.

Even over the past ten years or so, we've seen the best scientific predictions proved wrong — global warming is getting much worse, much faster, than the consensus belief in 1999.

The greenhouse theory has already made two wrong predictions First, that adding carbon dioxide to air will reduce atmospheric IR transmittance (it didn't); and second, that it will cause twenty - first century warming (it didn't).

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.

He is one who celebrates when the recent climate data show the alarmist's predictions of catastrophic warming might be wrong.

They are stating that all of the predictions from the last couple of years about global warming causing all of this crazy weather are all wrong.

If the prediction of 2C warming holds true, and there is NO Theory or science that suggests it is wrong, then the human species will see a climate that it has not experienced before.

And with it all predictions of warming based on the greenhouse effect are proven to be completely wrong.

Instead of acknowledging their hypothesis was wrong because their predictions were wrong and the evidence didn't match their claims the IPCC moved the goalposts from global warming to climate change.

Despite the billions of taxpayer dollars spent on both the global warming research and associated IPCC reports, the «consensus expert» climate change predictions have been spectacularly wrong.

The idea the author is getting at (that any long term prediction, will probably prove wrong) was captured pretty well (especially as it relates to the global warming debate) by, among others, Michael Crichton.

I repeat another question: if the warming does not match the prediction, will you accept the theory is wrong?

London, Dec 6 (IANS) Predictions that global warming could cause sea levels to rise by six feet in the next century are alarmist and wrong.

I suggest that our track record to date is infinitely superior to that of the global warming alarmists including the IPCC, who have been wrong in all their very - scary predictions.

It is impossible to imagine any other agency or job where you can be so consistently wrong yet claim to the world your prediction of global warming is so certain.

What I would like Yale and Columbia to review are the predictions that have been made over the past two decades concerning the consequences of global warming and look at how often these predictions have been wrong.

Since none of it is anthropogenic it is clear that AGW does not exist, predictions of a global warming catastrophe are totally wrong, and policies adapted for emission control are a criminal waste of public resources.

Not only have its models been conclusively wrong about CO2 - caused global warming over the last 15 years, but the climate models» regional predictions are often diametrically opposite of reality.

For even if the models are proven to be wrong with respect to their predictions of atmospheric warming, extreme weather, glacial melt, sea level rise, or any other attendant catastrophe, those who seek to regulate and reduce CO2 emissions have a fall - back position, claiming that no matter what happens to the climate, the nations of the Earth must reduce their greenhouse gas emissions because of projected direct negative impacts on marine organisms via ocean acidification.

In an article titled «The Great Green Con no. 1: The hard proof that finally shows global warming forecasts that are costing you billions were WRONG all along,» Daily Mail journalist David Rose reported that he presented «irrefutable evidence that official predictions of global climate warming have been catastrophically flawed,» and featured quotes from four climate scientists.

NOAA's State of the Climate report for 2008 said that periods of 15 years or more without warming would indicate a discrepancy between prediction and observation — i.e., that the models were wrong.

But the promoters of the AGW scare have all made wrong predictions, claiming that global warming would continue.