Sentences with phrase «case of the anthropogenic global warming»

In the case of anthropogenic global warming, there is a theory (first conceived over 100 years ago) based on well - established laws of physics.

In the case of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis, they set out to prove that human CO2 was causing warming and climate change.

Not exact matches

Third, with our ∼ 1 °C scenario it is more likely that the biosphere and soil will be able to sequester a substantial portion of the anthropogenic fossil fuel CO2 carbon than in the case of 2 °C or more global warming.

So it extremely behooves us to reduce our GHG emissions very drastically very quickly... just in case the solar output starts increasing, adding heat on top of our anthropogenic global warming.

Little do they realize that the basic thrust of my criticism of the I.P.C.C. draft was really to register a clear complaint that I.P.C.C. was being too wishy - washy and was not presenting its case for anthropogenic impact being the principal driver of global warming as clearly and forcefully as they could, and should.

National Geographic, like other choristers in the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) alarmist choir, is hyping the latest «climate research,» in this case, the new computer modeling program of a team at the University College of London's (UCL) Institute for Sustainable Resources.

Is this just another case of «extreme weather» caused by «catastrophic majority anthropogenic global warming»?

The study of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) long ago ceased to be a case of scientific inquiry and has now become a cult.

Later that year, the debate turned nasty when the physicist Frederick Seitz took to the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal to accuse other climate researchers of colluding to bolster the case for anthropogenic global warming in IPCC reports.

Vis.: [Coby]: «In the case of the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming, what we do have is a theory (first conceived over 100 years ago) that is based on well established laws of physics...».

In 2008 John W. Farley, a professor in the department of physics and astronomy at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, wrote an (almost) excellent paper «The Scientific Case for Modern Anthropogenic Global Warming» (http://monthlyreview.org/080728farley.php) which discussed the pros and cons of the AGW science.

In the worst - case scenario, this is cemented in the public mind as a refutation of the connection between anthropogenic carbon emissions and global warming, and ongoing projects to eliminate carbon will be reversed.

In the case of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, there's not even apparent warming continuing in the system, let alone signs of catastrophe.

That was one of the reasons the «ocean acidification» scare was invented: as a fallback position in case it were to become clear — as it increasingly has — that anthropogenic global warming theory is a busted flush.

In an article published in 2008, Cohen wrote:»... at the time of my retirement I was well convinced, as were most technically trained people, that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's case for Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is very tight.

In either case, lack of warming for 15 years is enough to conclude that greenhouse warming does not exist and the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming by the greenhouse effect is false.

Climatologists might not think that is the case in their filed, too, but nearly every part of it is contended by some major part of its adherents — regardless of the claim to «consensus» on anthropogenic global warming.

After all, the case for anthropogenic global warming reduces to 4 propositions: 1) There is a greenhouse effect — if there weren't, Earth would be a ball of ice, 33 degrees cooler than its current temperature.

Just in case it is not clear, this is the exact statement in the paper that I was basing my understanding on Explicit endorsements were divided into non-quantified (e.g., humans are contributing to global warming without quantifying the contribution) and quantified (e.g., humans are contributing more than 50 % of global warming, consistent with the 2007 IPCC statement that most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations).