Sentences with phrase «warming theory does»

If the greenhouse effect doesn't exist, then man - made global warming theory doesn't work.

This is false, global warming theory does not predict less extreme weather.

Not exact matches

He discusses another one of those ridiculous, «why conservatives think the way they do» articles soon to be published, and weighs in with a theory of his own for higher levels of global warming skepticism among the world's Rush Limbaughs.

To test this theory, we poured a cup (eight ounces) of warm water on the Baby Box mattress in the box (what — you thought only the folks at Consumer Reports get to do experiments in white lab coats?).

And they wanted to test their theory on the clouds that do form in this region — warm convective clouds that are fuelled by the ocean's moisture.

His research was just published in Nature Geoscience, and the theory it proposes solves two long - standing riddles about the early earth: How come the earth was warm enough to have water when the sun was only three - quarters as bright 4 billion years ago, and where on earth did the nitrogen needed for life come from?

These analyses, whilst not disproving the anthropogenic global warming theory, do show that the climate we are in today is not unusual in recent history, and therefore the possibility of natural variability causing the warming can not be ruled out, as it seemingly has been by many «independent» scientists, and the IPCC.

For example, if you accept that the CO2 concentration was low a thousand years ago, why does it seem likely that temperatures back then seem to be warmer than today — there is a huge amount of evidence to support this in the Northern Hemisphere, and a growing band of evidence to support the theory that the Southern Hemisphere was similarly warm during this time.

Sweat theory believe that traditional sauna uses high heat and humidity to warm the air, but infrared uses light and radiant heat, which warms the body (instead of the air), and can do so at lower temperatures, which allows you to sweat more to help rid toxins.

I usually stick with that theory too but I feel like when it gets warmer and you get used to the whole tank top and shorts look a romper with arms and legs showing doesn't bother me anymore.

Another theory as to why cats do this is that curling up in a small space is a lot warmer.

Sign up online to do the theory at home, this can save you a day and allow you to come on holiday and dive in the warm water without worrying about the book portion of the studying!

You will get a chance to dive in nice and warm water on Bali with some great marine life and don't have to worry about pool or theory anymore once you are on Bali.

If you complete all the pool and theory, all you need to do is bring your referral paperwork to us and sign up for 2 days diving in the warm waters of Thailand.

Night gaunt, # 66 «I don't believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) anymore than I believe in the theory of Evolution.

I do urge all contributors who are so certain of the AGW theory to at least look at the UAH data (Google Global Warming at a Glance).

For instance, if ice rebounds to 1979 levels in 2009 to 2011 that doesn't disprove global warming theory just like the last few years of low ice levels didn't prove it.

\ Why are \ deniers \ castigated for saying \ We don't know what causes the warming \ when the AGW theory can not explain what initiates the warming that CO2 exacerbates?

One theory as to why avian flu hasn't spread as much from chickens to humans in West Africa is that Nigeria and neighbors are warmer and there's more space, so people don't have to keep their chickens in their houses — meaning they breathe less chicken feces and dander, etc..

The two most common arguments against warming theories seem to be (1) local temperature variations (or mutually - inconclusive data) disprove global warming itself; and (2) models aren't real science, anyway, so we don't need to worry about them.

So, while they may be predisposed to link their opposition to evolution, the Big Bang theory of the universe and global warming together, they don't appear (based on this limited data anyway) to have dismissed all science, at least not yet.

Anecdotal evidence didn't start global warming theories, or plate tectonics.

So, Jacob, if you can show me a theory that makes as much sense of Earth's climate and makes as many verified predictions as the current consensus model and which doesn't imply serious problems due to warming, I'll be the first to pat you on the back.

The match between the data and the theory doesn't prove that carbon dioxide is responsible for the warming, however, it does mean that any alternative explanation should do as well or better.

Ousted congressman Bob Inglis (R - SC) has a theory about why he lost this year's midterm primary: conservative voters did not much care for Inglis's belief in global warming.

In an interview of Crichton published in a U.K. newspaper a few days ago, he stated that he might endorse the Kyoto Treaty, or something similar, 10 years from now IF the science, at that point, more strongly supports the global warming theory than he believes it does now.

Also, since Motl noted all these examples of warming, I assume he must have some universal theory... or at least hypothesis... to explain them... I am hoping for something a bit better than «Well, the sun is somehow getting hotter even though our measurements don't detect this.»

I grew up with the theory that it was the Ice Age we should «beware» however, since this did not happen, the environmentist movement created a «Global Warming» theory we must all «beware».

CAGW or Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is the acronym used (mostly by those that don't support taking immediate action on climate change) for the theory (or collection of hypotheses) that attribute most of the observed modern warming to human activities and warn that continuing similar activities (mostly emitting CO2) could result in warming that is dangerous to both civilization and a number of ecosWarming is the acronym used (mostly by those that don't support taking immediate action on climate change) for the theory (or collection of hypotheses) that attribute most of the observed modern warming to human activities and warn that continuing similar activities (mostly emitting CO2) could result in warming that is dangerous to both civilization and a number of ecoswarming to human activities and warn that continuing similar activities (mostly emitting CO2) could result in warming that is dangerous to both civilization and a number of ecoswarming that is dangerous to both civilization and a number of ecosystems.

The hockey stick is one attempt at doing so because it provides a very visual impression of what is happening, but this in turn means a lot of people get the false impression that it is some kind of cornerstone that the whole of global warming theory is built on.

I don't believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) anymore than I believe in the theory of Evolution.

There are a variety of reasons that the media tend to pay outsize attention to research developments that support a «hot» conclusion (like the theory that hurricanes have already been intensified by human - caused global warming) and glaze over on research of equivalent quality that does not.

It seems that those who fear AGW (or at least some of them) do admit that it is not realistic to expect a planetary atmosphere such as ours to warm up oceans of water over the timescale required by AGW theory because of the huge volume and density of that water and thus the heat storage differentials.

One must understand that made Galileo part of a decidedly smaller minority than the 3 % of scientists who don't belong to repeatedly refuted, debunked, and entirely discredited 97 % of scientists who supposedly are rock solid on the theory that humans are causing catastrophic global warming.

I am clearly not an artic specialist, but expressing your theory in such a manner does nothing to convince members of the general public that the recent cold weather in the northern hemisphere is due to global warming.

Chris V. CO2 goes up, temp goes down, oceans cool, sea levels decrease, arctic sea ice is within 1979 -2000 mean, AGW theory of catastrophic warming is B U S T... Even the fraudulent manipulation of the GISS data set does not change that.

Sceptics are fond of grasping hold of ANY theory (however weak, fanciful or unlikely) of what drives recent warming as long as it doesn't include CO2.

An AGW believer like Steven Mosher will tell you that AGW theory doesn't claim that AGW explains all the warming for a given period, but that AGW makes it That Much Warmer Than It Would Have Been.

You don't have to doubt the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming theory to know that there are key variables that have important, measurable effects on world temperatures at these kind of timescales — ocean cycles come to mind immediately — which he has left out.

«Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.»

It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that schwing, troposphere warming that's missing, «n models» showing 3-fold exaggerated warming, (though no expanded wildfire - flood activity as predicted, instead greater agricultural productivity) a theory that's used for policy determining.

(3) Does the absence of warming over the past 15 years disprove the alarmists» theories about catastrophic global warming and, if not, why not?

«Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human - made global warming — the alleged warming crisis does not exist.»

The gaps do not prove evolution is wrong any more than the gaps in global warming theory prove it is wrong.

I don't think many folks who have observed Heartland from afar would say that Heartland has any special focus on or animus towards Gleick (more than they might have for any other strong advocate of catastrophic man - made global warming theory).

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.

** We note, however, that the atmosphere, both over land and ocean, did not warm during this same post-1978 period — even though atmospheric theory and every climate model predicts that the tropical atmosphere should warm nearly twice as rapidly as the surface.

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»

Although I agree that there should be some greenhouse warming — planetary cooling in the infrared in both ERBS and ISCCP - FD doesn't do anything to confirm the greenhouse gas theory.

Until then, many, varied and twisty are the theories about how «warm water» is getting in to do the melting.