Sentences with phrase «proponents of anthropogenic global warming»

Also, since you agree with P&O's description of how the greenhouse effect works (i.e. downward long - wave radiation warms the lower atmosphere and the ground), will you retract statements like the following «-LSB-...] I demonstrate that the down - welling radiation hypothesis divulged by the proponents of the anthropogenic global warming [is] incompatible with the laws of thermodynamics.»

This is sound and well established science and is relied by upon the proponents of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) to explain why they believe the Earth is warmed by human emissions of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) to a temperature higher than it would be if we were not releasing emissions.

Their work challenged attempts to get rid of the MWP because it contradicted the claim by the proponents of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

In attempts to counteract the temperature decrease from 1940 to 1970 while CO2 from human sources increased proponents of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) claimed it was due to human addition of sulfate aerosols.

A severe credibility problem for proponents of anthropogenic global warming is the challenge that models can't forecast beyond 72 hours, but they're certain about much longer forecasts.

All the changes made by the IPCC and proponents of the anthropogenic global warming theory (AGW) were not done to adjust to new evidence or correct previous errors.

It is my contention (and that of many others) that in fact this is the default null hypothesis and until proponents of the anthropogenic global warming hyothesis come up with some better evidence to back up their claims of imminent dangerous warming driven by co2 and a water vapour feedback to its increasing levels, the null hypothesis is the best one we have.

I have encountered much confusion about the relevance of so called diabatic and adiabatic processes in the minds of both alarmed proponents of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) and in the minds of many sceptics.

My sarcasm is driven by cynicism because the AG's actions are a sure sign of the failure of proponents of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

Not exact matches

There are many interesting comments from proponents of human caused climate change (AGW or anthropogenic global warming) and from sceptics which show an astonishing range of differing interpretations and understandings of the so called Greenhouse Effect none of which bear much relation to the actuality.

Proponents of the IPCC and their anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis continue their crusade (pun intended) by inveigling the support of authority figures, like the Pope and by inference, associated groups.

It is difficult to arrange a debate of anthropogenic (that is, man - made) global warming (AGW) because few proponents of AGW are willing to face such debate.

I am not a proponent of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming whatever the cause.

It is implied by some AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) proponents that the proportion of CO2 in the air is a critical determinant of temperature but both Venus and Mars have over 90 % of their air as CO2 yet their temperatures are very different.

In an Orwellian exercise in doublespeak, the authors of the text, including well - known proponents of abortion and population control like the UN's Jeffrey Sachs, make an attempt to conflate the bogeyman of extreme anthropogenic global warming with the very real problem of environmental pollution.

Firstly, this new work is a severe blow to proponents of the enhanced greenhouse hypothesis and advocates of Anthropogenic Global Warming who have worked so hard to deny solar influence on global clGlobal Warming who have worked so hard to deny solar influence on global clglobal climate.

All that having been said, let's take another look at the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) argument, first noting the following: The proponents of AGW argue that, right from the beginning of the Industrial Revolution when there were no automobiles, very few steam engines, and only 1.2 billion people (versus today's 7 billion), the introduction of initially tiny quantities of a weak greenhouse gas produced, without time - delay, an in - phase and measurable rise in global temperatures that continues to thiGlobal Warming (AGW) argument, first noting the following: The proponents of AGW argue that, right from the beginning of the Industrial Revolution when there were no automobiles, very few steam engines, and only 1.2 billion people (versus today's 7 billion), the introduction of initially tiny quantities of a weak greenhouse gas produced, without time - delay, an in - phase and measurable rise in global temperatures that continues to thiglobal temperatures that continues to this day.