Sentences with phrase «anthropogenci global warming hypothesis»

Probably the most articulate article is The Global Warming Hypothesis and Ocean Heat by William DiPuccio.

The anthropogenic global warming hypothesis says ocean heat should increase fairly steadily and uninterrupted (monotonic), barring any volcanic eruptions

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?»

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.

And IF this were the basis for the global warming hypothesis, I'd be fighting against it!

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.»

Yes, but the polar cooling does flatly contradict the climate models that are the basis of the global warming hypothesis.

The «global warming hypothesis» has been developed according to the principles of sound science.

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

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 and here.

And finally, I asked you for some empirical evidence that a) demonstrates the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis; b) that was not based on computer models; and c) is not dependent on unsubstantiated correlation.

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.

He ignored the fact the global warming hypothesis was never tested, then ridiculed those who tried to practice the science he once advocated.

And while we are on the subject, can you give us one, just one, piece of empirical evidence to support the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis.

Coming out of this, I have a question as to the best collective term for critics of the global warming hypothesis.

Roy Spencer is a bona fide climate scientist who disagrees with the dangerous global warming hypothesis.

Seems to me that the global warming hypothesis is undermined every which way you look at the data.

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.»

Therefore climate models are wrong, as is the global warming hypothesis.

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

However, when comparing model outputs against Hurst climate persistence, I find that the catastrophic majority anthropogenic global warming hypothesis to be formally «Not Proven» per Bray (2005), and Johnson (2013).

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

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

These experts again found no support for the Pounds» global warming hypothesis.22 So much for Pounds» forceful storytelling and his «very high confidence» (> 99 %, following the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) that global warming was the driver of amphibian extinctions.

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.

These, rather than published scientific research, are offered as a counter to the mountains of research supporting the global warming hypothesis.

... the evidence keeps growing to show that the man - caused global warming hypothesis is clearly wrong.

«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.

Well, in a nutshell, the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, which is at the center of modern climate - doomsday scenarios, can not explain the powerful warming of the past.

You write: «And, speaking of short periods of time on which to be drawing conclusions: the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, correlating carbon dioxide increases with temperature increases, is based on only about 23 years — 1975 - 1998.

So the answer to your question is «observation», as opposed to the speculation which seems to be very much in vogue among those pushing the ever - floundering Hidden Global Warming hypothesis (if it can even be dignified with such a label).

And, speaking of short periods of time on which to be drawing conclusions: the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, correlating carbon dioxide increases with temperature increases, is based on only about 23 years — 1975 - 1998.

My argument is not with the properties of Co2 itself, it's with the global warming hypothesis with respect to CO2.

Recognition of the essential flaw in the dangerous global warming hypothesis predates the IPCC and has been there for the world to see in the title of a paper published in 1966 by CSIRO division of meteorological physics former chief Bill Priestley: «The limitation of temperature in hot climates by evaporation.»

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

AGW scepticism is based on the same scientific principles that has produced the global warming hypothesis, though the fact is that arguments from both sides have become highly politicised.

Per the IPCC's global warming hypothesis, at the very top of the troposphere, above the equator region, is the location (12 km, 200hPa @ 20 ° N - 20 ° S) that triggers a positive climate feedback, which produces the mythical runaway, tipping point of accelerated, dangerous global warming, which of course is unequivocal and irrefutable, except when it isn't.

Since the human - caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.

Nevertheless, global warming hypotheses have been narrowed in the press and public debate to a «consensus» view of catastrophic global warming in a political world that prizes agreement and confidence over exploration, and a media that thrives on crisis.

Most journalists believe the global warming hypothesis for the simple reason that they are politically predisposed to trust the word of a certain kind of left - wing activist scientist.

Probably the most articulate article is The Global Warming Hypothesis and Ocean Heat by William DiPuccio.

The anthropogenic global warming hypothesis says ocean heat should increase fairly steadily and uninterrupted (monotonic), barring any volcanic eruptions

First, it's incorrect to call this preposterous bogosity «the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis,» inasmuch as the term «hypothesis» has a specific technical meaning in scientific usage, which is summarized in physicist Jeff Glassman's brief layman - accessible article «Conjecture, Hypothesis, Theory, Law.

Having examined the arguments supporting the global warming hypothesis, this exceptional engineer is less than impressed.

In the unlikely event that this — far too lengthy — paper gets accepted in a reputable scientific journal, its impact on the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis or on the MSM's biased opinion of this hypothesis will be negligible.

Without that correlation, the high sensitivity water vapour feedback driven catastrophic anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is effectively dead in the water.

Velasco is one of many scientists who question the conclusions of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a political body which has been the primary force behind the promotion of the catastrophic global warming hypothesis.

In that report by Christopher Booker, headlined «Top scientists start to examine fiddled global warming figures,» he points out that a new team of five scientists has begun investigating the increasing evidence that the data being used for climate - change projections by computer models has been intentionally distorted by analysts wedded to the global warming hypothesis.