Sentences with phrase «agw theory»

One of the principle scientists engaged in formulating the AGW theory was Roger Revelle, a US Navy oceanographer who was employed at the Office of Naval Research.

That scenario avoids the problem of imbalance inherent in AGW theory, keeps PV = nRT in balance and explains why any extra energy absorbed by GHGs is no longer available to affect equilibrium temperature.

Since no extra mass or gravity is being added AGW theory can not be right because of the residual imbalance.

this is why AGW theory is all fraud.

And so I began to see the correlations to the use of fear in the AGW theory.

They don't get to claim endorsing an AGW theory where A is more than 1 %.

I personally don't look at a temperature time series from any one single station and say, «That's (not) compatible with AGW theory».

It is simply not an accurate description of AGW theory to expect that warming should occur everywhere just because CO2 is everywhere.

Your analogy is not perfect (in my humble opinion) but it helps to illustrate some important considerations that AGW theory ignores altogether.

They learned some lessons — not about AGW theory being fallacious but about finding ways of preventing the keen amateur from spotting gaping flaws in their theories.

One of these friends, let's call him «B», I've found is ignorant of some pretty basic aspects of AGW theory and results, but he steadfastly refuses to read any AGW publications or web sites.

It is interesting that AGW theory supporters usually frown upon geoengineering projects.

However, the fundamental argument of the AGW theory is that this trace gas (at slightly less than 0.04 % or 400 ppm) is THE key ingredient to controlling a massively complex system such as climate.

Pat accepts the basics of AGW theory, but does not see evidence of a high CO2 sensitivity and doesn't buy the argument that warming is «bad.»

Sooner or later, the facts will reveal weaknesses and strengths in the AGW theory.

According to AGW theory and IPCC claims, warming should be steadily accelerating... Actually this is formally falsified by observations showing quite a constant back - ground trend of +0.05 °C per decade, on top of which cooling and warming periods are alternating.

If you can't see how that destroys the AGW theory then you ckearly do nt even understand the theory

The math is wrong and so is AGW Theory, otherwise the disasters they predicted some would have already happened and others in the process.

Some set of observations will undermine confidence in the AGW theory.

So, let's see, when we (those defending the AGW theory) note that, of the small minority of scientists on the skeptic side making discredited arguments, many if not most seem to have quite direct connections to right - wing or libertarian organizations like the Cato Institute or the George C. Marshall Fund or with the fossil fuel (especially coal) industry, we are derided as engaging in «ad hominem» attacks and so forth.

I have several times asked, on AGW boards, what would be accepted as constituting a disproval of AGW theory.

I have suggested elsewhere that this is the result of anomalies appearing in the fabric of the AGW theory with renewed but doomed efforts to incorporate or reject disparate information.

However if I was to state that this proves that the AGW theory is false and the Earth is actually cooling that would not necessarily be true.

Do you expect somehow that AGW theory suggests that there are no other factors other than CO2?

«Denying» with no basis is, of course, as pointless and «affirming» with no basis, but most of the posts I see are simply pointing out weaknesses in one or more aspects of the AGW theory.

I don't want to disbelieve in carbon - driven AGW theory, but I just don't find the science compelling enough to discard the existing climate theories, but perhaps something compelling will appear next month... who knows, eh?

It shall also be highlighted that warming rate is exactly the same over [1910 — 1940] and [1970 — 2000] periods, whereas consumption of fossil energy (i.e manmade CO2 emissions) has been multiplied by 5 in the meantime... which actually falsifies AGW theory.

I have yet to see a comprehensive argument put forth to undermine the current AGW theory.

If the match is poor, at what stage will you reassess AGW theory?

The fault of AGW theory is not that it is falsified by the evidence but rather that it is non-falsifiable hence unscientific.

The standards of those pushing AGW theory is identified more now with a cultural movement than a moral position.

Yes, from a sociological perspective I wonder what the leading lights of the Enlightenment would have been saying about AGW theory.

It appears that there is NO real supporting evidence and much disagreeing evidence for the AGW theory as proposed.

Furthermore, your statement about AGW theory is not one that I agree with, nor one that any respectable scientific body that I know of agrees with.

Just because MWP provides an irrefutable rebuttal to AGW theory: AGW theory is fully incompatible with a worldwide warm period while CO2 concentration was 30 % lower than today...

AGW theory is not practiced.

I think we need to combat the AGW theory itself and any related legislation, not these companies.

What AGW theory attempted to prove, and has failed to prove, is that relatively small changes in CO2 lead to huge changes in the energy budget.

Such a consensus seems to be one of the few planks left as AGW theory goes down the pan.

Second, we are not talking about AGW theory being totally at odds with the truth.

As for the rest of the interview, file it under «Speculation», along with 99 % of AGW theory being published.

I think you are having trouble climbing that first step of even understanding what the AGW theory says, let alone being able to formulate a sensible question about it.

AGW theory did not predict this, thus the fact that there is no way of knowing what the temperature is doing means AGW has a serious problem.

If AGW supporters are not able to describe what would count as a «comprehensive undermining of AGW theory», I am not sure how they would recognize one if we provided it.»

Would that fact convince you that AGW theory is wrong?

There is no logical requirement to come up with alternative explanations for the AGW theory being poor.

Indeed: — Absence of accelerating warming — Existence of 30 years long cooling periods [1880 — 1910] then [1940 to 1970]-- Similitude of warming rates (about +0,15 °C per decade) during both [1910 — 1940] & [1970 to 2000] periods, whereas anthropogenic CO2 emissions have been multiplied by 5 here between, formally disproved AGW theory and IPCC claims.

Their adherence to AGW theory is not based on science it is solely based on emotion.

AGW theory gives a strong position to CO2 concentration, more than I think is justified.

Its always a single needle in the haystack that AGW skeptics search for amongst a sea of scientific articles and statements by scientific bodies supporting AGW theory.