Sentences with phrase «warming science because»

The Keeling Curve, a famous graph named after scientist Charles David Keeling, measures the increase in carbon dioxide concentration in the air since 1958; it is considered the bedrock of global warming science because it is generally believed that there is a direct correlation between increasing levels of carbon dioxide and global warming.

Not exact matches

The term «global warming denier» is so offensive because it seeks to attach skepticism about the warming and / or its supposed Draconian solutions with denying the Holocaust and being «anti science.»

This is absolutely relevant — this guy is apparently a religious wacko who ignores clear science because it doesn't mesh with his beliefs... wonder what he thinks of global warming

They can say «Hey look, one of you smart people decided to come back to our ideology of «ignorance is bliss» where we don't need to worry about global warming, or sharing what we have with the poor or any science and wellfare stuff at all because God will just take care of it...»

Jon, I don't believe in the myth of man - made global warming because the science behind it is bunk — I'm sure you think I'm weird.

The Science study finds that this is most likely because the models underestimate the atmospheric warming in the Arctic that is induced by a given carbon - dioxide emission.

That's partly because the warming of the oceans is not uniform, says R. Steven Nerem, a professor in aerospace engineering sciences at the University of Colorado Boulder.

A study published in ACS» journal Environmental Science & Technology has found that because the newer engines emit higher levels of the climate - warming pollutant black carbon than traditional engines, their impact on the climate is uncertain.

«We examined average and extreme temperatures because they were always projected to be the measure that is most sensitive to global warming,» said lead author from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science, Dr Andrew King.

«The reason we think biofuels can reduce global warming is because we assume the feed crop will take carbon out of the air,» says Tim Searchinger of Princeton, the lead author of a report on biofuels» environmental impact in a February issue of Science [subscription required].

«I've always thought that the phrase «global warming» was something of a misnomer because it suggests that the phenomenon is something that is uniform around the world, that it's all about temperature, and that it's gradual,» Holdren said yesterday at the annual AAAS Forum on Science and Technology Policy in Washington, D.C. (AAAS publishes ScienceInsider.)

«Because both processes are often not studied together, the «net» effects of warming on [carbon] storage in the tundra are poorly known,» said Rose Cory, an environmental sciences and engineering assistant professor at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and co-author of the permafrost collapse study.

Speaking at an annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Barnett said climate models based on air temperatures are weak because most of the evidence for global warming is not even there.

At risk of going beyond the theme of this thread, I offer up excerpts from it because I think Orr's review speaks indirectly to the larger issue of how we as humans and as a global society are reacting to the findings of the earth sciences regarding anthropogenic global warming, climate disruption, and their ensuing ecological and socio - economic consequences:

«The polar bear was the first species protected under the Endangered Species Act solely because of threats from global warming,» said Shaye Wolf, climate science director for the Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental group.

I would describe my self as a kind, warm hearted person, who has a strong work ethic, i am very determined to succeed in life, i want to go to college for Video Game Design and Computer sciences, I like to make a woman feel good about herself, because everyone has lots of potential the only...

Again, science had become politicized in the minds of some people, in this case because the most recognizable voice shouting out about global warming and its effects is Al Gore.

For his part, Mr. Monckton says there is no need to exploit such events because he and others have exposed fatal weaknesses in the mainstream view that a strong warming effect is due to rising concentrations of carbon dioxide — regardless of the peer - reviewed, Nobel Prize - winning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the conclusions of various national academies of science and 100 years of growing accord on the basics.

The troll is probably educated enough to see we are warming the planet, but doesn't like climate science and is willfully ignorant, because of vested interests of some type.

Evidence of melting glaciers and of Spanish wine - makers having to relocate their vineyards because it is getting too warm in their current location seem to be harder for the science haters to refute (though I always seem to get the «but not all glaciers are in retreat» counter-argument).

Similarly, just because the CO2 theory is based on valid science, it may not correctly explain the cause of the recent warming.

It's an important moment for this message to sink in, because the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, meeting this week in Bangkok, is getting ready to dive in on a special report on the benefits of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above Earth's temperature a century or more ago and emissions paths to accomplish that (to learn what this murky number means in relation to the more familiar 2 - degree limit click here for a quick sketch, basic science, deep dive).

David Tenenbaum # 8 (Gee, when we have a bunch of candidates that don't seem to «believe» in evolution, who don't care what happens to the planet because they discount what science tells us about global warming, I can't think a «science debate» is such a bad idea.)

Gee, when we have a bunch of candidates that don't seem to «believe» in evolution, who don't care what happens to the planet because they discount what science tells us about global warming, I can't think a «science debate» is such a bad idea.

One was a paper published in Science a week ago, by Andreas Schmittner of Oregon State University and colleagues, that generated cheers from doubters of global warming because the authors concluded the climate was less responsive to a big buildup of greenhouse gases than some previous work had concluded.

AGW «science» predicted that Antarctic continental ice would increase because of more precipitaion due to global warming, not sea ice extent.

Dan De Silva @ 32, you have this thing where you think climate scientists make up science that suggests the world is warming because they are «biased» in some way politically or otherwise.

I think the main reason it is often difficult to convince a lot of people of global warming science is because it is simply harder to present a tangible and irrefutable example of the science at work.

[Response: Because of nearly two decades of science showing that modern warming can not be explained by natural factors.

On the science If people understood what Hansen has been explaining, what the IPCC report says if you read it closely, what climate scientists say off the record, what I try to cull together from the literature, they would understand that we can't go above 450 p.p.m. [parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere], because that will almost certainly take us across thresholds that shoot to 750 to 1000 p.p.m. — and that is 5 °C + warming, and that is an ice - free planet.

If you are not impressed by the science so far, perhaps it's because none of the sources you rely on have adequately communicated the implications of global warming.

Global Warming Science Just Because It's Snowing Out Doesn't Mean Global Warming is Fake, Say It With Me People Just 57 % of US Residents See Evidence of Global Warming & 23 % Know About Cap - and - Trade Global Warming Changes to Snowmelt Patterns in Western US Could Have Larger Impact Than Previously Thought

An article in Science (11 Nov 2005) by Scott L. Wing, et al., concludes:... «The PETM provides an important analog to present - day anthropogenic global warming, because the two episodes are inferred to have similar rates and magnitudes of carbon release and climate change (6)».

And, the IPCC projection is probably too high because it was driven by a collection of climate models which new science indicates produce too much warming given a rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.

Wordy as the letter is, it could be boiled down much like Al Gore's 2006 movie or the collective lot of the entire catastrophic man - caused global warming into a 3 - part talking point: «the science is settled» / skeptics are industry - funded & orchestrated liars» / «reporters may ignore skeptics because of the prior two reasons.»

It's ironic because Nature, the «International weekly journal of science», has a troubling involvement in the false narrative and controlled message of global warming science.

Your and all your other fellow climate alarmists provide evidence that these observations of eminent scientists is correct, because none of you can cite any peer reviewed science that empirically falsifies the null climate hypothesis of natural variability still being the primary cause of climate change, or cite any peer reviewed science that empirically shows that anthropogenic CO2 has been the primary cause of the late 20th century climate warming.

Trenberth and several other scientists who are, or have been, in the IPCC told InsideClimate News that because the panel has already established that global warming is real, rapidly occurring and driven by human activity, it is time to focus less on defending this basic science and focus more on what is less understood.

Because the radiation balance of the earth shows that CO2 is warming and environmental science suggests that the warming will be dangerous, the yadayada about the emails is a mere distraction from the next agenda item, protecting climate.

Global warming is caused by the Sun, especially its radiation over the past century plus or minus a half century which is dominantly absorbed and stored in the ocean because the ocean is dark and because it has a high heat capacity (inertia in some Earth sciences).

The scientists also put paid to claims that global warming has «stopped» because global temperatures in the past 15 years have not continued the strong upward march of the preceding years, which is a key argument put forward by sceptics to cast doubt on climate science.

«Warmer periods are called optima because for human civilization, and much of nature, warm is better than cold,» writes Michael Hart in Hubris: The Troubling Science, Economics, and Politics of Climate Change (Kindle location 3197).

Clearly it is a topic of interest to science because of the positive feedback increased water vapor is supposed to apply to any warming.

Of course it is worth knowing that 97 % of research papers and / or their authors attribute global warming to humans but as the video says, it's the science behind it that counts, and just because the papers are peer reviewed in itself proves nothing about whether the scientific proposal / theory is necessarily right.

Global warming is a particular difficult science because of the vast sums being spent by vested interests in fossil fuels to encourage doubt in the results.

On November 28, the paper told policymakers to ignore science because it could hurt jobs and increase economic hardship «in the name of global warming theories» its editors don't believe are valid.

Also See: Watch Now: Climate Depot's Morano on Fox News Mocking «Climate Astrology»: «This is now akin to the predictions of Nostradamus or the Mayan calendar» — Morano: «There is no way anyone can falsify the global warming theory now because any weather event that happens «proves» their case... Man - made global warming has ceased to be a science, it is now the level of your daily horoscope» — Gore [in 2006 film] did not warn us of extreme blizzards and record cold winters coming»

«There is no science demonstrating that the mid-point of the standard IPCC projection of a warming of 3 degrees if CO2 - e doubles from the 1750 level of 280 ppm will have any adverse impacts, if only because there is as yet no unambiguous empirical evidence of any such adve...

To quote Malcom; Global warming is a particular difficult science because of the vast sums being spent by vested interests in fossil fuels to encourage doubt in the results.

We're not offering a «counter-claim» about the science, because our position is that even the concrete, incontrovertible, unassailable fact of human influence on global warming and climate change does not, by itself, make a case for action.