Sentences with phrase «against warming of the atmosphere»

Roy Spencer, best known for his satellite work arguing against warming of the atmosphere (which turns out to have been an artifact of a combination of algebraic and sign errors), criticizes Gore for pointing out that recent warmth appears to be anomalous in at least the past 1000 years.

Not exact matches

The mounting evidence for climate change, and all its tragic consequences, has provided a powerful argument against fossil fuel power stations: the burning of coal, gas and oil releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and this is almost certainly responsible for global warming.

Likewise, while models can not represent the climate system perfectly (thus the uncertainly in how much the Earth will warm for a given amount of emissions), climate simulations are checked and re-checked against real - world observations and are an established tool in understanding the atmosphere.

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.

Against such a noisy background, it is hard to detect the signal from any changes caused by humanity's increased economic activity, and consequent release of atmosphere - warming greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.

In climate - change discussions, two Princeton professors go against the grain By Mark F. Bernstein The issue of climate change, or global warming, has become a rallying cry: The Earthâ $ ™ s surface temperatures are Ârising due to increased levels of carbon dioxide and other Âgreenhouse gases in the atmosphere, much of it produced by human activity.

This, in turn, occurred against a background of global warming linked to rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.

«Climate science» as it is used by warmists implies adherence to a set of beliefs: (1) Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations will warm the Earth's surface and atmosphere; (2) Human production of CO2 is producing significant increases in CO2 concentration; (3) The rate of rise of temperature in the 20th and 21st centuries is unprecedented compared to the rates of change of temperature in the previous two millennia and this can only be due to rising greenhouse gas concentrations; (4) The climate of the 19th century was ideal and may be taken as a standard to compare against any current climate; (5) global climate models, while still not perfect, are good enough to indicate that continued use of fossil fuels at projected rates in the 21st century will cause the CO2 concentration to rise to a high level by 2100 (possibly 700 to 900 ppm); (6) The global average temperature under this condition will rise more than 3 °C from the late 19th century ideal; (7) The negative impact on humanity of such a rise will be enormous; (8) The only alternative to such a disaster is to immediately and sharply reduce CO2 emissions (reducing emissions in 2050 by 80 % compared to today's rate) and continue further reductions after 2050; (9) Even with such draconian CO2 reductions, the CO2 concentration is likely to reach at least 450 to 500 ppm by 2100 resulting in significant damage to humanity; (10) Such reductions in CO2 emissions are technically feasible and economically affordable while providing adequate energy to a growing world population that is increasingly industrializing.

Again correct, but absolutely no evidence against the ability of downwelling radiation from the Atmosphere to the Surface to cause the Surface to be warmer than it would be absent the «greenhouse gases».

I made the point then (and repeat it here) that although this doesn't «disprove» global warming (the globe has warmed and during this warming we have gone from about half a million cars to almost a billion, from about 500 coal - fired power plants to about 23,000 — I'll let you tell me about the growth in the numbers of airplanes, washing machines and data centers...), it is a fairly straightforward argument against high sensitivity of the atmosphere to increasing concentrations of CO2.