USA Today: Could we be wrong about global warming?

[Shooter]

Could the best climate models -- the ones used to predict global warming -- all be wrong?

Maybe so, says a new study published online today in the journal Nature Geoscience. The report found that only about half of the warming that occurred during a natural climate change 55 million years ago can be explained by excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. What caused the remainder of the warming is a mystery.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/sciencefair/2009/07/could-we-be-wrong-about-global-warming.html

 

[hasoos]

Definitly we could be wrong. We have only got to monitor a very short period of earths history, and while our models are ok, we are quite a ways from accurate models. When I was in college I was making models of Ozone depletion over time. Every time I added a new factor, sometimes it would explain one thing, but break another explanation for another thing. That was fairly common. Now my models were probably not nearly as complex as most of the environmental models we are talking about here, but the premise is still the same.

You have to be really careful about what you try to control in nature. Now all that being said, I still do not like pollution, and think what can be done about pollution, should be done if it can. Just because it's good not to shit in your own back yard, so to speak.

 

[SodaPopinski]

There is nothing in that blog that refutes climate change. They acknowledge that excess carbion dioxide in the atmosphere raises the average temperatures on the planet (the base theory of climate change or global warming or whatever you want to call it). The study just suggests there are other factors in play as well.

This is like someone eating twinkies and donuts for lunch every day, then concluding that something other than twinkies could have played a factor in him gaining weight.

 

[RR7]

The USA Today?

 

[hasoos]

Note when I made my comment I made it in general, not about the article itself.

The problem with the article itself, is the guy has no reason to think what he thinks. He doesn't back up his theory with any reason. He says he comes to a conclusion that heat had to come from somewhere else during the history period of Earth, but no where in his talk or the article, does he say why he came to that conclusion.

 

[Idog1976]

There is nothing in that blog that refutes climate change. They acknowledge that excess carbion dioxide in the atmosphere raises the average temperatures on the planet (the base theory of climate change or global warming or whatever you want to call it). The study just suggests there are other factors in play as well.

This is like someone eating twinkies and donuts for lunch every day, then concluding that something other than twinkies could have played a factor in him gaining weight.

It was the donuts don't you see? THE DONUTS!!!!!

I mean really wants on the line here anyways? Habitability of the Earth? Why would that be importan...**whisper from lawyer**

Oh right I guess that COULD impact profits. Maybe this is worth looking into.

 

[hasoos]

It was the donuts don't you see? THE DONUTS!!!!!

I mean really wants on the line here anyways? Habitability of the Earth? Why would that be importan...**whisper from lawyer**

Oh right I guess that COULD impact profits. Maybe this is worth looking into.

But dude, the doughnuts were trans fat free. It couldn't have been the doughnuts! NOT THE DOUGHNUTS!! NOOOOOOOO!

 

[Shooter]

There is nothing in that blog that refutes climate change.

"Climate change"? What happened to "Global Warming"? Did that expression go out of fashion about the time evidence started mounting against it? Heh, heh.

It's becoming clearer all the time that the idea of global warming is a huge propoganda campaign cooked up on non-existent "evidence," and that's it's all a house of cards about to come tumbling down. Out in Iowa, they're having the coldest summer on record right now . . .

But don't tell Al Gore! It might tarnish his Nobel Prize.

 

[Shooter]

The USA Today?

*edited* The original source is "Nature Geoscience," which is a well-respected journal in the field.

 

[BlazersBlood]

Even if the models are inaccurate, the 'propaganda' that was used to promote ideas to curb global warming is still a good thing. It doesn't hurt to raise awareness of what we are doing to the Earth.

 

[bodyman5001]

There is nothing in that blog that refutes climate change. They acknowledge that excess carbion dioxide in the atmosphere raises the average temperatures on the planet (the base theory of climate change or global warming or whatever you want to call it). The study just suggests there are other factors in play as well.

This is like someone eating twinkies and donuts for lunch every day, then concluding that something other than twinkies could have played a factor in him gaining weight.

Yeah, like the fact that he ate 15 hotdogs for dinner every night. Right before he went to bed.

The hotdogs play the part of the sun in my analogy, as they are made up of stuff we just can't comprehend. Don't know what is in them or why nobody will tell us but they will make you fat faster than sugar coated bread any day.

I don't have a link to back it up and don't know if they could even know for sure but I read somewhere that the temperatures on Mars were higher now.....must be those SUV's on earth that did that

It seems that scientists don't believe the suns output is changing the temps on Earth but there could be something in the energy from the sun that we can't even measure. Figure that out and these so called Milankovitch cycles and we might actually be able to keep our climate better for humans for a longer period. If we can figure out how to control the temps all the time we might live forever.

I don't want no gosh danged ice age and I don't care if polar bears have to die to keep us alive. DON'T CARE.


FUCK THE TEMPERATURE (within reason)

Maybe we could actually really clean up our environment and not just keep polluting all we like while pretending that those horrible cars are doing all this. People worry about running out of oil, yet they want to stop using it. If you don't want to use it why do you care if the Earth doesn't have any?

Maybe we could keep from letting chemicals and medicines pollute our water. I will take 5 more degrees and higher ocean levels and an otherwise clean world any day of the week. It was about 116 here in Vegas today and muggy and not much worse than it is when it is 105.

whoopty dooooooo

 

[Shooter]

Even if the models are inaccurate, the 'propaganda' that was used to promote ideas to curb global warming is still a good thing. It doesn't hurt to raise awareness of what we are doing to the Earth.

We're doing lots of things to the earth, but changing global temperatures is not one of them.

 

[OddEnormous]

It's becoming clearer all the time that the idea of global warming is a huge propoganda campaign cooked up on non-existent "evidence,".

Except for in the very article YOU posted.

You aren't very bright are you?

I'm glad you're on the right. Makes me proud.

 

[mobes23]

The only people who say global warming is a farce are non-scientists and, more often than not, politicos with agendas. Anyone with a solid scientific background has been convinced for the last 15 years.

 

[Minstrel]

 

[boatsandstars]

"hey everyone, i don't think before i post and i hate that liberal media, it's always biased except for the times i say it's not, then it's right... ok party on, i'm going to go back to doing what i do every day, wasting time in front of my computer at home, with no job, or friends, or education. peace, i'm out."


(pause for my dashing caped crusader to come to my rescue)



and scene.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Even if the models are inaccurate, the 'propaganda' that was used to promote ideas to curb global warming is still a good thing. It doesn't hurt to raise awareness of what we are doing to the Earth.

"Propaganda" is an evil tool used only by commies, socialists and democrats.

However, we really do not know how much global warming there is, and if so, how much is directly attributed to our earthly habits. Skip the propaganda, it's enough for me to be aware of what the potential carbon has and for us to live conservatively with respect to what potential effects we may be causing. I'm a moderate and have been living green for 30 years just because it was the right thing to do- not because of scare tactics from the left.

 

[Minstrel]

"Propaganda" is an evil tool used only by commies, socialists and democrats.

Either this is sarcasm or it wins the Irony Award for the month.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Either this is sarcasm or it wins the Irony Award for the month.

And which one do you think it is?

 

[PapaG]

Well, at this point, it's clear that in the past 11 years that CO2 levels rising don't cause temperatures to rise in accordance with them.

Who is "we"? There are plenty of people who think man-made global warming is a political argument and not a scientific argument.

 

[Shooter]

There are plenty of people who think man-made global warming is a political argument and not a scientific argument.

Including at least 600 scientists, who recently signed a declaration criticizing the whole global warming argument.

 

[Eastoff]

I like how the USA today article is too skeezy to tell you the name of the original article so you can't interpret it yourself.

 

[Eastoff]

Including at least 600 scientists, who recently signed a declaration criticizing the whole global warming argument.

link please =] unless you mean this http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p333.htm which is mostly full of non atmospheric scientists and people without PhDs

 

[Eastoff]

Did you know there is only about 100 doctorates in atmospheric science awarded each year? and about 200 Masters in atmospheric science each year? That 600 scientists sure is a lot. Do you suppose some of those 600 scientists are not at all involved in the field? Like say asking a Tennis player how to be a great Basketball player.

 

[Denny Crane]

Did you know there is only about 100 doctorates in atmospheric science awarded each year? and about 200 Masters in atmospheric science each year? That 600 scientists sure is a lot. Do you suppose some of those 600 scientists are not at all involved in the field? Like say asking a Tennis player how to be a great Basketball player.

That would make 1000 doctorates and 2000 masters over the last 10 years. Do they stop being PhDs the year after they get their doctorate? Do they all die off from global warming long before they're old aged?

 

[barfo]

That would make 1000 doctorates and 2000 masters over the last 10 years. Do they stop being PhDs the year after they get their doctorate? Do they all die off from global warming long before they're old aged?

I think he meant the opposite. 300 new atmospheric scientists per year, times a 40 year (?) average career,
means that there are some 12000 active atmospheric scientists.

Compare that to the tiny fraction of the 600 signers who are actually trained/working in the relevant discipline, and you get a very big disparity.

barfo

 

[Eastoff]

That would make 1000 doctorates and 2000 masters over the last 10 years. Do they stop being PhDs the year after they get their doctorate? Do they all die off from global warming long before they're old aged?

ty professor mathematics, is 600/2000 not a lot of people? (perhaps you could help me reduce my fractions too

 

[Eastoff]

I think he meant the opposite. 300 new atmospheric scientists per year, times a 40 year (?) average career,
means that there are some 12000 active atmospheric scientists.

Compare that to the tiny fraction of the 600 signers who are actually trained/working in the relevant discipline, and you get a very big disparity.

barfo

My point was that this is A LOT of people SUDDENLY coming out, which seems a little off. Regardless, someone on the forum saying "HEY GUYS I HEARD IT"S NOT TRUE B/C THIS!" is a little shaky grounds for science. Also to assume that one year of colder weather means global warming can't be true, is silly. There have not been papers published by academics in academic peer-reviewed journals giving statistics against global warming. There are academics that question the causes of global warming though. I still maintain that article in the Republican Today is skeezy for not linking or listing his source fully. I want to be able to interpret for myself.

 

[Denny Crane]

ty professor mathematics, is 600/2000 not a lot of people? (perhaps you could help me reduce my fractions too

I've posted before that there are about 3200 atmospheric scientists.

But I fail to see why that should be the only qualification to vote in the poll about whether global warming is man-made.

 

[Denny Crane]

My point was that this is A LOT of people SUDDENLY coming out, which seems a little off. Regardless, someone on the forum saying "HEY GUYS I HEARD IT"S NOT TRUE B/C THIS!" is a little shaky grounds for science. Also to assume that one year of colder weather means global warming can't be true, is silly. There have not been papers published by academics in academic peer-reviewed journals giving statistics against global warming. There are academics that question the causes of global warming though. I still maintain that article in the Republican Today is skeezy for not linking or listing his source fully. I want to be able to interpret for myself.

The journal Nature Geoscience isn't a peer reviewed journal? See the opening post.

Ever hear of this guy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy

John R. Christy is a climate scientist whose chief interests are global climate change, satellite sensing of global climate, and paleoclimate. He is best known, jointly with Roy Spencer, for his version of the satellite temperature record.

A native of Fresno, CA (where he learned to pan for gold), Christy was a missionary in Kenya for two years. After earning his divinity degree he founded a Southern Baptist church in South Dakota before pursuing a career in science and teaching. He received his Ph.D. in Atmospheric sciences from the University of Illinois. He also has a master's degree in divinity from Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary.

He is a distinguished professor of atmospheric science, and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. He was appointed Alabama's state climatologist in 2000. For his development of a global temperature data set from satellites he was awarded NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement, and the American Meteorological Society's "Special Award."[1] In 2002, Christy was elected Fellow of the American Meteorological Society.[2]

Christy was a lead author for the 2001 report by the IPCC[3] and the US CCSP report Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere - Understanding and Reconciling Differences.[4] Christy is generally considered a contrarian on some issues related to global warming, although he helped draft and signed the American Geophysical Union statement on climate change.[5]

In an interview with National Public Radio about the new American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement, he said: "It is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way."[5]

In October 2007 Christy gave a lecture at Auburn University in which he reviewed areas of the global warming debate that he deems most significant and offered his evaluation of them.[6]

While he supports the AGU declaration and is convinced that human activities are one cause of the global warming that has been measured, Christy is "still a strong critic of scientists who make catastrophic predictions of huge increases in global temperatures and tremendous rises in sea levels."[5]

More recently, in a publication in the series Washington Roundtable on Science and Public Policy he said, "I showed some evidence that humans are causing warming in the surface measurements that we have, but it is not the greenhouse relation."[7]

(The link has a partial list of his publications. Also, I'm an Illinois alum myself)