USA Today: Could we be wrong about global warming?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Cool, I appreciate describing someone who is unsure about man causing global warming. I didn't notice anything in there that he says "global warming isn't happening" and i also noticed a quote that he said man probably had an impact on the atmosphere. I said a peer reviewed article saying global warming isn't happening, while the original post does suggest global warming might be based on inaccurate models.

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.

So, yes atmospheric scientists generally agree that CO2 is not the only thing affecting the atmosphere. But rather there is more causing the changes. To assume that CO2 is the only green house gas is silly. And yes, Nature geoscience is a peer reviewed source. Yet no, GLOBAL WARMING IS A LIE! just carbon dioxide is not the only cause and there maybe more causing it we don't understand.
 
Cool, I appreciate describing someone who is unsure about man causing global warming. I didn't notice anything in there that he says "global warming isn't happening" and i also noticed a quote that he said man probably had an impact on the atmosphere. I said a peer reviewed article saying global warming isn't happening, while the original post does suggest global warming might be based on inaccurate models.



So, yes atmospheric scientists generally agree that CO2 is not the only thing affecting the atmosphere. But rather there is more causing the changes. To assume that CO2 is the only green house gas is silly. And yes, Nature geoscience is a peer reviewed source. Yet no, GLOBAL WARMING IS A LIE! just carbon dioxide is not the only cause and there maybe more causing it we don't understand.

The lie is that oceans will rise in 50-100 years to drown all the coastal cities. Actually, most of Al Gore's movie.

I agree there may be more causing it that we don't understand. We don't understand why there's global warming on all the inner planets at the same time - not just Earth.

I actually agree with Hasoos that pollution isn't a good thing and we should always be improving things to that end. It's a far different thing than "if we don't stop now, we'll hit the tipping point tomorrow and it may already be too late!" I drive a Prius, FWIW.

When I was at UofI, I worked for the USGS doing software modeling. You'll have to excuse my skepticism about the accuracy of the computer models used to scare people when they don't even predict the past with known data and result sets. Or that they're not even close to modeling .0000001% of a comprehensive climate model.

My own theory about global warming is albedo. White surfaces reflect heat, dark surfaces absorb it. Trivial to prove - take a white and a black piece of cardboard and let them sit in the sun and you can measure the air over the black one is hotter with a thermometer. 10,000 years ago, the earth was considerably whiter. Ice age, ice caps down past the great lakes (oh my goodness, look how far the ice caps have really melted!). The less ice, the darker the surface, the more heat not reflected into space, the hotter it gets. It is a feedback mechanism, too - it should get warmer faster as time progresses.

Just paving roads with asphalt darkens the earth's albedo, and asphalt is like 95% efficient at absorbing heat. Why they don't make solar panels out of it is beyond me ;-)

Then there's that troublesome ozone whole right over where the ice caps are melting. That's man made, but not something we continue to do (put CFCs in the air).

Or clear cutting of great areas of the amazon rain forest (you can really see it from satellite photos). HUUUUGE areas of vegetation cut down. What do trees and vegetation do to CO2? Photosynthesis (CO2 + H2O in, sugar plus O2 out).

2007_fluxnet_colordata.jpg
 
We don't understand why there's global warming on all the inner planets at the same time - not just Earth.

What do you mean by this? On Venus, there's extreme global warming (its temperature is way out of proportion with its distance from the sun) and the reason is because the Venusian atmosphere has a huge amount of green house gas, most notably carbon dioxide.

Mercury has no "global warming" because it has no significant atmosphere. It's simply very hot where its surface is exposed to the sun.
 
What do you mean by this? On Venus, there's extreme global warming (its temperature is way out of proportion with its distance from the sun) and the reason is because the Venusian atmosphere has a huge amount of green house gas, most notably carbon dioxide.

Mercury has no "global warming" because it has no significant atmosphere. It's simply very hot where its surface is exposed to the sun.

How does pressure (Venus atmosphere) affect temperature? PV=nRT

(More pressure == higher temperature, and the air pressure on Venus is 90x the air pressure on Earth at the surfaces)


http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/05/global-warming-on-jupiter.html

http://www.physorg.com/news163160543.html
 
Last edited:
But I fail to see why that should be the only qualification to vote in the poll about whether global warming is man-made.

It depends on what sort of poll you are taking. If it is a public opinion poll, then sure, interview a representative sample of the population to get their views. That might be interesting from a political or sociological point of view, but it certainly isn't relevant to the actual scientific answer to the question.

If it is a "poll" of self-selected global-warming deniers, then it is neither interesting nor relevant.

If it is a poll here on S2, then I'll be interested in the results because I care what people here think, but again it won't be in any way scientifically relevant.

If it is a statistically valid poll of actual scientists trained in and working in a relevant field, then it might just be scientifically relevant.

barfo
 
It depends on what sort of poll you are taking. If it is a public opinion poll, then sure, interview a representative sample of the population to get their views. That might be interesting from a political or sociological point of view, but it certainly isn't relevant to the actual scientific answer to the question.

If it is a "poll" of self-selected global-warming deniers, then it is neither interesting nor relevant.

If it is a poll here on S2, then I'll be interested in the results because I care what people here think, but again it won't be in any way scientifically relevant.

If it is a statistically valid poll of actual scientists trained in and working in a relevant field, then it might just be scientifically relevant.

barfo

You don't have to be trained in a field to be working in it. I see no reason why a medical doctor who's very smart and who reads all the right journals and does scientifically correct experimentation on his own is any less qualified to vote in this mythical poll that says there's a concensus.
 
How does pressure (Venus atmosphere) affect temperature? PV=nRT

(More pressure == higher temperature, and the air pressure on Venus is 90x the air pressure on Earth at the surfaces)

Yes, other factors also influence global temperature. That doesn't conflict with what climate scientists say about carbon dioxide's role in raising global temperatures and mankind's role in raising CO2 levels.
 
You don't have to be trained in a field to be working in it. I see no reason why a medical doctor who's very smart and who reads all the right journals and does scientifically correct experimentation on his own is any less qualified to vote in this mythical poll that says there's a concensus.

He'd have to demonstrate those things before I'd accept his vote. If he did, then I'd accept it. But people who aren't trained in scientific fields, but claim to be qualified, are overwhelmingly crackpots.

barfo
 
He'd have to demonstrate those things before I'd accept his vote. If he did, then I'd accept it. But people who aren't trained in scientific fields, but claim to be qualified, are overwhelmingly crackpots.

barfo

I agree with you generally, but I think the quote was that they were scientists, and the one petition I found related had lots of medical doctors who are clearly trained in scientific fields. However, I still question if they are actively reading journals about global warming, if so WTF ARE THEY DOING NOT READING ABOUT MEDICAL STUFF?!

But yeah, Denny, the poles melting does increase warming too as does the asphalt. I heard that some of the cities in Texas create their own weather patterns.
 
btw denny, what are those two maps of south america showing in colors?
 
Every time another story comes out against the whole idea of global warming, the global warming crowd jumps on it like it's an insidiious disease that has to be stamped out before it can spread.

Reminds me a bit of the thought-control policies of Hitler's Third Reich.
 
I agree with you generally, but I think the quote was that they were scientists,

There are scientists and then there are scientists. A biologist isn't necessarily going to be an expert on quantum physics.

and the one petition I found related had lots of medical doctors who are clearly trained in scientific fields.

Huh? MDs are about as far from being scientists as scientists are from being MDs.

barfo
 
Every time another story comes out against the whole idea of global warming, the global warming crowd jumps on it like it's an insidiious disease that has to be stamped out before it can spread.

Reminds me a bit of the thought-control policies of Hitler's Third Reich.
That's ridiculous. I'm sorry but the third reich murdered millions of people. There is no comparison.
 
That's ridiculous. I'm sorry but the third reich murdered millions of people. There is no comparison.
the comparison wasn't to the third reich, but to the third reich thought control policies.

not that i agree with the comparison, but it makes a difference.
 
Last edited:
Every time another story comes out against the whole idea of global warming, the global warming crowd jumps on it like it's an insidiious disease that has to be stamped out before it can spread.

Reminds me a bit of the thought-control policies of Hitler's Third Reich.

HAHAHA:biglaugh:
 
He'd have to demonstrate those things before I'd accept his vote. If he did, then I'd accept it. But people who aren't trained in scientific fields, but claim to be qualified, are overwhelmingly crackpots.

barfo

Heh. Do you know what the Scientific Method is? I imagine you do, so apply it to the CO2/Warming hypothesis in a lab and get back to me. :lol:
 
There are scientists and then there are scientists. A biologist isn't necessarily going to be an expert on quantum physics.
Huh? MDs are about as far from being scientists as scientists are from being MDs.
barfo

I agree on point one. I would still argue that MDs are scientists, and would just lump it into the "this isn't your field of study so please stfu" group
 
Heh. Do you know what the Scientific Method is? I imagine you do, so apply it to the CO2/Warming hypothesis in a lab and get back to me. :lol:

I think the point was that I understand that my car needs gas to run, but that doesn't make me a mechanic. To oversimply the problem without a background in the field is incorrect. BUT i'm probably wrong on what his point was...
 
Heh. Do you know what the Scientific Method is? I imagine you do, so apply it to the CO2/Warming hypothesis in a lab and get back to me. :lol:

I do, and so I know your comment doesn't make much sense. There are lots of things than can't be done 'in a lab'.

barfo
 
I do, and so I know your comment doesn't make much sense. There are lots of things than can't be done 'in a lab'.

barfo

True, and none of them involve "science". :devilwink:
 
I agree on point one. I would still argue that MDs are scientists, and would just lump it into the "this isn't your field of study so please stfu" group

That's reasonable, I guess.

barfo
 
True, and none of them involve "science". :devilwink:

That's not correct, not even approximately. Unless perhaps you are thinking of 7th grade science class.

barfo
 
Not at all. If you actually read the link you provided, you'll see that he was saying that the threat from global warming was similar to the threat from the nazis, not that people who don't accept his premise are nazis.

barfo

Fearmongering, and ridiculous, as he floats on the oceans in his gigantic yacht.

Global warming is going to profile people according to their religion?

Grasping at straws, and President Failure doesn't have the punch anymore to pass his climate bill.
 
That's not correct, not even approximately. Unless perhaps you are thinking of 7th grade science class.

barfo

No, I'm thinking of the actual Scientific Method, in which replicable results are produced in a controlled setting, and hypotheses become theories, which then become laws.

:lol:
 
Fearmongering, and ridiculous, as he floats on the oceans in his gigantic yacht.

Global warming is going to profile people according to their religion?

Grasping at straws, and President Failure doesn't have the punch anymore to pass his climate bill.

Minnie Mouse is Pregnant!

My left big toe looks like a Volkswagen!

Random non sequiturs FTW!

barfo
 
No, I'm thinking of the actual Scientific Method, in which replicable results are produced in a controlled setting, and hypotheses become theories, which then become laws.

:lol:

:lol:

barfo
 
Minnie Mouse is Pregnant!

My left big toe looks like a Volkswagen!

Random non sequiturs FTW!

barfo

I agree, Al Gore comparing fighting global warming to fighting Nazis is a total non sequitur. It's beyond belief, actually.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top