Sentences with phrase «temperature than the hypothesis»

Making no assumption about spectrum is 3 times closer to our observed temperature than the hypothesis which confounds spectrum, a specific extreme spectrum, and total irradiance.

Not exact matches

Rather than using complex computer models to estimate the effects of greenhouse - gas emissions, Lovejoy examines historical data to assess the competing hypothesis: that warming over the past century is due to natural long - term variations in temperature.

Lindzen and Giannitsis (2002) pose the hypothesis that the rapid change in tropospheric (850 — 300 hPa) temperatures around 1976 triggered a delayed response in surface temperature that is best modelled with a climate sensitivity of less than 1 °C.

On the possibility of a changing cloud cover «forcing» global warming in recent times (assuming we can just ignore the CO2 physics and current literature on feedbacks, since I don't see a contradiction between an internal radiative forcing and positive feedbacks), one would have to explain a few things, like why the diurnal temperature gradient would decrease with a planet being warmed by decreased albedo... why the stratosphere should cool... why winters should warm faster than summers... essentially the same questions that come with the cosmic ray hypothesis.

V 53: Supporters of the mainstream climate change hypothesis claim there is no explanation for the (supposedly) alarming rise in temperatures other than CO2 emissions, and they challenge skeptics to provide one.

Supporters of the mainstream climate change hypothesis claim there is no explanation for the (supposedly) alarming rise in temperatures other than CO2 emissions, and they challenge skeptics to provide one.

I note in passing the Wiley site is currently down for maintenance so Hargreaves is not accessible — however from the diagram that can be seen it looks as though the null hypothesis was «no change in temperature» rather than showing it «had substantial skill compared to any naive model.

I rather suspect (my hypothesis if you will) is that the resulting trend will be even more muted than the temperature trend.

If this hypothesis were correct, Earth temperatures would have risen about 6 °C between 1900 and 2006, rather than the rise of between 0.1 °C and 0.5 °C, which actually occurred.»

The null hypothesis is that temperature has been stable for ten thousand years and nothing in the data indicates than anything has changed.

Judith is right, «warmest» year is much less important than would be (but missing) validation of IPCC conclusion (actually hypothesis begging testing) that «the global mean temperatures will > 2oC in the next 100 years.

If the record had been a tropical jungle or sea I'd have considered my hypothesis falsfied but so far every prediction made by it fits what has been observed with the sole exception of the Antarctic interior but that may be due to exceptional characteristics such as the strong polar vortex, ozone hole, and a temperature far lower than anywhere else on the planet.

Despite the fact that the film delineates a few impacts of an Earth - wide temperature boost anticipated by researchers, for example climbing ocean levels, more dangerous storms, and disturbance of sea ebbs and flows and climate designs, it portrays these occasions incident a great deal more quickly and intensely than is recognized logically possible, and the hypothesis that a superstorm will make quick worldwide environmental change does not show up in the investigative writing.

You see, Joanne, you have nothing in the way of an hypothesis that even explains the observed surface temperature of Earth, let alone that of Venus or at the base of the 350Km high nominal troposphere of Uranus where it's hotter than Earth.

In a series extending over many years, such a pause may have weakened the hypothesis of steady temperature increase but the base temperature levels are still higher than in recorded history and there is still room for temperatures to continue to rise in the longer term.

Rejects the null hypothesis that the latest observed 20 - yr and 30 - yr trend of near - surface temperature (ending in 1994) is part of natural variability with a risk of less than 2.5 % to 5 %

To discard observations (like the «pause» of the global mean temperatures since 1997 shown on the appended figure 1 - A) the IPCC folks put forward a hypothesis («the greenhouse effect well understood since more than hundred years «-RRB- but do not provide any definition of their «greenhouse effect ``.

Occam's Razor isn't kindly disposed to the obscenely complex consensus model that does a worse job of predicting surface temperature than this far simpler and better performing hypothesis.

However, statistical analysis very clearly support the theory, which also imply that the climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling is about 1.5 K. And models made using this hypothesis are able to explain the temperature patterns since 1850 very well, much better than any IPCC CMIP5 models.

But during the former period, the CO2 concentration was about 20 % lower than during the later one, and fossil fuels consumption was about 5 times lower... This falsifies the hypothesis that CO2 is the main driver of temperature variations.

If you are trying to test the hypothesis that climate models have not predicted the pause since 1998, then you should be comparing trends between models and observations, rather than seeing if the observed temperature anomalies lie within a broad envelope of climate model simulations.

The thunderstorm thermostat hypothesis is far from settled science, but it is clearly a much better hypothesis (in terms of explaining the available data) than the IPCC's assumption that global temperatures are determined primarily by changes in atmospheric CO2 levels.

It's less than 4 percent of the greenhouse gases and ALL records show temperature increases before CO2, opposite to the fundamental assumption of the IPCC hypothesis.

The hypothesis that is to be proved (i.e. that CO2 causes global warming) is used to explain the rise in temperature in the Cenozoic, without citing any basis other than «surely» (in italics).

Otherwise, such a hypothesis does not even satisfy the First Law of Thermodynamics (basically, conservation of energy): Without substances in the atmosphere that absorb terrestrial radiation, the earth's surface at its present temperature would be emitting back out into space way more energy than it receives from the sun and hence would rapidly cool down.

The AGW hypothesis states that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will increase the global temperature by approximately 2.78 °C but the 14.77 micron band of the Earth's thermal radiative spectrum is already so close to satureation that no more than half a degree C of warming from a doubling of CO2 is even (remotely) physically possible.