Sentences with phrase «warming theory seem»

What has progressed is that the flaws of the anthropogenic climate warming theory seem clearer day after day (the flawed «hockey stick», the flawed Oreskes meta - review, the false affirmation of more frequent cyclones, the mismatch beetwen satelite and surface temperature measurements...).

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.

After 20 years of academic supremacy and hundreds of billions of dollars of costs; the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory seems headed for the dust bin of history.

Not exact matches

Points 2 and 3 might lead to their not believing in global warming, but when faced by such an overwhelming majority of scientist who believe it, it seems (to me) almost like a conspiracy theory to deny it.

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.

Your Grand Theory seems to rest on the idea that FF - use produces CO2, a GHG which is warming the planet but that, in some bizarre balance, a commensurate quantity of SO2 aerosols must also be produced cooling the planet.

And on that — the predictions — the theory of global warming seems to falter: Carbon dioxide emissions are growing faster than ever, especially from the Chinese over the past decade.

Plus, you seem to be confusing «AGW theory» (anthropogenic global warming) with «the greenhouse effect.»

both of these well - researched observations would seem to put a big chink in the anthropogenic global warming theory — certainly as it applies to melting of the arctic ice cap.

It seems so many climatologists and politicians alike have staked their reputations on CO2 definitely being the number one cause of global warming that they just are not willing to even consider the possibility the theory is flawed.

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.

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.

I then refer you to the gravity anomalies, shown in the GRACE maps, and as ocean warming proponents, consider whether a theory such as that would bolster the arguments that your mathematics already seem to show.

Finally the mechanism for c02 being a warming cause has never been explained, the current theory reverses from c02 being a result of heat to being a cause which seems illogical.

One reason for advertising it here at an early stage is that the denizens of Climate Etc. seem well motivated to poke holes in theories of global warming, which I view as a positive benefit of skepticism, as distinguished from flat denial.

Many «skeptics» seem to argue from an unwritten assumption that warming happened, climate scientists saw it, asked «what caused this warming», discovered Co2 as a good candidate and the AGW theory was born.

when skeptics are forced to answer that question, the only safe hiding place for them is to say «they do nt know what effect added GHGs will have» and then when confronted with the vast amount of evidence that counts «for» a warming hypothesis, it does nt seem rational reject the theory that added GHGs will (all things being equal) warm the planet.

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.

Fund managers trust the theory of human - caused warming, but world markets don't seem to be buying it.

3) Muscheler seems to be asserting that temperature has been rising for the last 30 years when it has been roughly flat for the past 15 years (a fact that presents problems for Muscheler's preferred CO2 - warming theory, but is perfectly compatible with the solar - warming theory, after cycle 23 slowed down and dropped off a cliff).

With this in mind, it is worrying that some journalists seem to feel pressure to avoid discussing weaknesses and uncertainties of man - made global warming theory, for fear that it will be seized upon by critics of man - made global warming, e.g., see this post by Mike Lemonick (there is a response to Lemonick's post by Prof. Roger Pielke Jr. here).

Ok here is my theory - of - everything, which seems to combine two different views: during the night, IR back radiation keeps the night surface a bit warmer, but this surface warmth must be trapped by bulk atmosphere, which is in physical contact with the surface.

Conservative Fox TV show host Sean Hannity said last week's blizzard «would seem to contradict Al Gore's hysterical global warming theories.»

It seems that man - made global warming theorists have put all their eggs in one basket and will defend the idea to the death, despite gaping holes in their theory and all evidence to the contrary.

A problem with this theory is that much of the criticism of man - made global warming theory is definitely not «anti-science», and seems to be based on careful consideration of the scientific data.

The theory that man is the cause of global warming seems very strong to me.

In the discussion about whether the Earth has warmed the «climate scientists» seem to be completely unable to speak the truth because the truth casts doubts on the «CO2 is increasing and will lead to temperature increases which will be bad» theory.

Some of the main reasons why so many people seem to want the global warming theory to be true is that they both don't want the poorer countries and people of the world to have abundant access to cheap energy in the form of coal, and oil etc..

Therefore, the theory that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes the Earth to warm, would seem to be as yet unproven.

There seems to be a popular perception that the greenhouse effect and man - made global warming theories can not be tested because «we only have one Earth», and so, unless we use computer models, we can not test what the Earth would be like if it had a different history of infrared - active gas concentrations.

In fact, it was one of my criticisms earlier that AGW theory seems overly intent on finding positive feedback loops, while not considering negative feedbacks seriously enough — one such potential negative feedback is that on a warmer Earth, more water is evaporated into clouds, in turn cooling things back off.

Apparently in the same manner that he glommed onto the notion that skeptic climate scientists are paid illicit industry money under instructions to «reposition global warming as theory rather than fact», it seems he didn't check the veracity of the more recently repeated «3000 IPCC scientists» figure.

The interesting thing is that if this theory is correct, which will require much more evidence to confirm, then our periods of warming and cooling would seem to correspond to the possible major changes in orbits among the planets.

But the fact that the entire ocean is warming — combined with application of conservation of energy to the observed changes in radiation — presents a bunch of problems for your theories that y ’ all seem perpetually hesitant to address directly.

As for lying, I have observed many scientists seem to have no difficulty with lying when they connect, without a shred of evidence, supportive modeling or any data or often even any theory such things as extreme weather is getting worse or is linked to CO2, wet areas will get wetter and dry areas will get drier, that the ocean swallowed the «missing heat», using a proxy upside down doesn't matter, the models are still adequate for policy even after such a huge divergence from reality, coral die - back is due to manmade warming rather than fishing, all warming must be bad rather than beyond a certain threshold, etc, etc, etc..

I did not say that Abelson was necessarily a global warming skeptic, though many web sites seem anxious to debunk the idea (or at least so I found out in the last couple of days), my point was that under his editorship Science was open to publishing articles whose findings were not supportive of the theory.

Your theory of physics seems to imply that my blanket does not keep me warm.

He only seems interested in considering possibilities which would undermine the man - made global warming theory.

A skeptic is a person who keeps an equally open mind to all information and evidence, whereas many self - proclaimed «climate skeptics» only seem to consider evidence which appears to undermine the man - made global warming theory.

It seems that the Obama administration, which has increasingly turned to unconstitutional «climate» edicts and decrees as the UN's global warming theories crumble, agrees with Figures and other alarmists about the Chinese model.

My response didn't mention AGW at all except indirectly in that Bob Tisdale's theory seems to imply the earth gets warmer after each El Nino.

In economic theory there are (were) plenty of models that seemed logical, coherent and broadly in line with both observations and established micro-results (this echoes the «but the effect is physical and the Earth is warming!»