Sentences with phrase «warming theory predicts»

Is that what GHG - warming theory predicts: a response restricted to the peninsula?

Scientists have thus far been unable to explain why there was no warming even though global warming theory predicts there would have been warming.

I believe global warming theory predicts larger anomalies towards the poles, so elimination higher latitude stations would be counterproductive.

Man - made global warming theory predicts that increasing the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) will cause global warming (in the troposphere) and stratospheric cooling, by increasing the strength of the greenhouse effect.

Dr. Kenner attacks the notion that extreme weather has increased in the past 15 years, or that Global Warming will cause in increase in extreme weather, noting, «If anything, global warming theory predicts less extreme weather.»

Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have also been steadily rising since the late 19th century, and man - made global warming theory predicts that increasing carbon dioxide should cause «man - made global warming».

Not exact matches

The finding runs counter to current dark matter theories, in part because the temperature measured was warmer than popular theories predict.

«Evolutionary theory predicts morphological changes in response to climate warming, but there is very little evidence for it so far in mammals,» Millien says.

The Arctic's rapid warming and the extreme vulnerability of Antarctica's ice sheets are «consistent with the results of our theory which predicted them before they happened,» Hoffert wrote.

This result is in complete contradiction to greenhouse theory, which predicts strong warming, especially at high latitudes.

In these high latitudes, temperatures are predicted to warm so fast and to such a degree so as to cause unprecedented melting of ice that even the most ardent of climate skeptics would be forced to concede the verity of global warming theory.

In this case, the theory predicts a «warming» signal, and the data confirm this to high confidence.

Ray Ladbury says that the theory predicts a warming signal and the data confirms this to high confidence.

This suggests to me that he was getting the basics more or less right, which in turn emphasises the point that the best models and theory we have all predict and have consistently predicted the same thing: warming, and quite a bit of it by the end of this century if we keep dumping CO2 in the atmosphere at our current rates.

- temperature sensors on satellites report much less warming in the upper atmosphere (which the theory of global warming predicts should warm first) than is reported by temperature sensors on the ground.

It is conceivable that aerosol effects (which includes «smoke») could also affect the lapse rate, but the aerosols tend to warm where they are located and depending on the composition, cool below — this gives an impact that — if it was a large factor in the tropical mean — would produce changes even larger than predicted from the moist adiabatic theory.

Yes, the notion that scientists tow the global warming line in exchange for fame and money seems to ignore the many benefits of being a published climate scientist who tows the «skeptic» line, or even seems to sympathize with some of their talking points — who are valuable, as market theory would predict, because they are very scarce.

The stratosphere is cooling as predicted by anthropogenic global warming theory (this can not be explained by solar variability) 4.

Under heavy political pressure from the Obama administration and other governments, the UN ran with the theory, despite the lack of any observable evidence to suggest the deep ocean is actually eating the UN's predicted global warming.

It is a fundamental tenet of anthropogenic global warming theory that all the warmth at a planetary surface above that predicted by the S - B equation is due to those GHGs rather than atmospheric mass.

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.

For this reason, many supporters of the theory assume that this apparent «global warming» is the «man - made global warming» their theory had predicted.

** 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.

In 2007 IPCC used greenhouse warming theory to predict that warming in the twenty - first century shall proceed at the rate of 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade.

In 2007 IPCC predicted from the greenhouse theory that global warming in the twenty - first century shall proceed at the rate of 0.2 degrees per decade.

But during every one of these 18 years Arrhenius theory has been predicting warming and getting exactly nothing.

If you are a scientist and your theory predicts warming but you get nothing for eighteen years in a row you are justified in dropping this theory into the waste basket of history.

If you are a scientist and your theory predicts warming but nothing happens for 17 years you are justified in assuming that the theory is false and and belongs in the waste basket of history.

Just yesterday, a peer reviewed paper was published which shows that the positive feedbacks that global warming theory depends on to predict a climate catastrophe, have been up until now vastly over stated.

And this theory predicts that the changes will occur in low - level clouds and as we discussed earlier, this sort of change is contradicted by the evidence about when the warming is happening.

It seems that this gives rise to sufficient embarrassment that they switched the term from global warming to climate change so now they can say, well the cooling is predicted by the theory as well.

The greenhouse theory used by the IPCC to predict warming has made a false prediction and therefore it must be abandoned.

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

* * * The evidence to support the theory of anthropogenic, or human - caused, climate change has been mounting since the mid-1950s, when atmospheric models predicted that growing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere would add to the natural «greenhouse effect» and lead to warming.

Question: I am yet to find a satisfactory resolution on the argument that goes something along the lines of «the poles are not warming more than the tropics even though «the greenhouse - gas theory» predicts so, and thus «greenhouse effect» can not account for the currently observed warming.»

We have a greenhouse theory of course that predicts warming when carbon dioxide goes up.

If you are a scientist and your theory predicts warming but you get nothing for 17 years you are justified in throwing that theory into the waste basket of history.

On the Guardian's forums, you'll find endless claims that the hockey stick graph of global temperatures has been debunked; that sunspots are largely responsible for current temperature changes; that the world's glaciers are advancing; that global warming theory depends entirely on computer models; that most climate scientists in the 1970s were predicting a new ice age.

Investor's business Daily finds a 1971 Washington Post story indicating the NASA's James Hansen, who originated the Global Warming theory in his Senate testimony in 1988, was earlier (during an interval of colder winters) predicting Anthropogenic Global Cooling.

Furthermore, the missing hotspot in the atmospheric warming pattern observed during the last warming period proves that (1) the IPCC climate theory is fundamentally broken, and (2) to the extent that their theory correctly predicts the warming signature of increased carbon dioxide, we know that carbon dioxide definitely did not cause the recent warming (see here for my full explanation of the missing hotspot).

The distinct lack of any warming has compromised greatly the ability of climate models to accurately predict short and long - term climate trends, and in my opinion goes a long way toward the «critical failure» that falsifies the very hypothesis and foundation of the anthropogenic global warming theory.

If a theory predicts warming and nothing happens for 17 years this theory should be rejected.

On the contrary the alternative IPCC theory did not reproduce the modulation of the temperature from 1850to 2000 and predicted a warming since 2000 at a rate of 2.3 C / century..

In particular, radiative transfer theory as used in GCM's predicts measurable warming of the troposphere that has not been observed.

What was much more certain was that the oceans were rapidly warming and growing more acidic, exactly as predicted by the greenhouse gas theory.

That is the exact reason why constant addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere for the last 17 years has been unable to cause warming predicted by the Arrhenius theory.

The Arrhenius greenhouse theory has been predicting warming ever since the hiatus started, 17 years ago, but as they themselves say, there has been none at all.

«Your reported temperature trends are garbage, but even your own reports undermine your overall theory because they don; t show the warming you all uniformly predicted.»

On the Guardian's forums, you'll find endless claims that thehockeystick graph of global temperatures has been debunked; that sunspots are largely responsible for current temperature changes; that the world's glaciers are advancing; that global warming theory depends entirely on computer models; that most climate scientists in the 1970s were predicting a new ice age.

The theory of greenhouse gases predicts that if we increase the proportion of greenhouse gases, more warming will occur (Arrhenius).