USA Today: Could we be wrong about global warming?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
PapaG said:
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.
Click to expand...

You've been corrected numerous times on this. A "theory" is not below "law" in science. A theory is a model of how something works, and often makes use of multiple laws and empirical observations. A law describes the mathematical relation between various things. A theory is a full model of a dynamic.

"Gravity" is a theory. First there was Newton's theory of gravity, then Einstein's theory of gravity. There are proposed theories of gravity that have yet to displace Einstein's.

"F=ma" is a law (Newton's second law of motion).

Einstein's or Newton's theory of gravity is not considered "weaker" than Newton's laws of motion.
 
westnob said:
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.
Click to expand...

Regarding MDs, I was thinking specifically of Michael Chrichton, a Harvard educated MD who clearly was a student of a number of things scientific. Noted man-made global warming skeptic. I don't think he was a practicing doctor anywhere, so who cares if he read JAMA (though I am sure he did anyway).

You limited your qualifications to Atmospheric Scientists, and I think that's outright a wrong thing to do. There's a lot to be learned about past climates from biology (Chrichton being an expert there), geology, physics, meteorology, etc.

And please note, I have never said there is no global warming. It's quite obvious the Earth overall has been warming since the end of the ice age (and before). The question is whether man is the main cause of it - some scientists claim man caused it during the stone ages for goodness sake.
 
Last edited:
Shooter said:
"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.
Click to expand...

You have the amazing ability to miss the point every time. It's boggling how out of touch you are. Somehow you've boiled down the global warming argument to Al Gore's ego and a communist plot to destroy America through environmentalism. Simply amazing.


Shooter said:
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.
Click to expand...

Or they try to figure out who is saying what and why they're saying it, like real people do in real debates. Join the club sometime.

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

Sometimes I wonder if you're a real person or a computer program designed to post dastardly stupid things on this forum just to piss me off.
 
hoojacks said:
Sometimes I wonder if you're a real person or a computer program designed to post dastardly stupid things on this forum just to piss me off.
Click to expand...
A) I'm a computer program.
B) I was designed to piss you off.
C) All it takes is posting the facts.
 
Minstrel said:
You've been corrected numerous times on this. A "theory" is not below "law" in science. A theory is a model of how something works, and often makes use of multiple laws and empirical observations. A law describes the mathematical relation between various things. A theory is a full model of a dynamic.

"Gravity" is a theory. First there was Newton's theory of gravity, then Einstein's theory of gravity. There are proposed theories of gravity that have yet to displace Einstein's.

"F=ma" is a law (Newton's second law of motion).

Einstein's or Newton's theory of gravity is not considered "weaker" than Newton's laws of motion.
Click to expand...

A theory has unprovable components that lead to a generally accepted fact. Gravity, as you mentioned, surely exists, but only because we call it "gravity". A law, on the other hand, is much more narrow and precise.

So yes, in some ways, a law is "above" a theory, although comparing the two is a bit like comparing apples and oranges.

And again, global warming made by man is still a hypothesis and has yet to be proven by any serious science, or even just observation.
 
I love it when nonscientists try to explain science.

Edit: and for what it's worth, Minstrel's got it right.
 
Last edited:
And please note, I have never said there is no global warming. It's quite obvious the Earth overall has been warming since the end of the ice age (and before). The question is whether man is the main cause of it - some scientists claim man caused it during the stone ages for goodness sake.
Click to expand...

Ding...Ding...Ding...

We have a winner....
 
PapaG said:
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:
Click to expand...

There are some experiments, such as proving relativity exists, that can be done outside of a lab. Such as satellites in space. Or Collecting data about water run off. Or collecting data about trees, such as age or diseased.
 
Minstrel said:
"F=ma" is a law (Newton's second law of motion).
Click to expand...

ACTUALLY F= (dm/dt)(dv/dt) where m is mass and v is velocity assuming vectors of all things. sorry but i couldn't resist being anal. neither could your mom OOOOOH
 
PapaG said:
A theory has unprovable components that lead to a generally accepted fact. Gravity, as you mentioned, surely exists, but only because we call it "gravity". A law, on the other hand, is much more narrow and precise.

So yes, in some ways, a law is "above" a theory, although comparing the two is a bit like comparing apples and oranges.

And again, global warming made by man is still a hypothesis and has yet to be proven by any serious science, or even just observation.
Click to expand...

So something like "theory of relativity" which can be proven and exactly described, if complex, is vague? Global Warming has been proven by serious science.
Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

This image shows the instrumental record of global average w:temperatures as compiled by the w:NASA's w:Goddard Institute for Space Studies. The data set used follows the methodology outlined by Hansen, J., et al. (2006) "Global temperature change". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 103: 14288-14293.
Click to expand...
 
westnob said:
ACTUALLY F= (dm/dt)(dv/dt) where m is mass and v is velocity assuming vectors of all things. sorry but i couldn't resist being anal. neither could your mom OOOOOH
Click to expand...

(dv/dt) is the same thing as acceleration. The rate of change in position by time is velocity and the rate of change in velocity by time is acceleration.

I don't know what (dm/dt)--the rate that mass changes over time--is supposed to signify. Newton's laws didn't assume any changes to mass by time. Even Einstein's relativity only posited that mass varies by acceleration...not time.

Are you trying to add in the effects of erosion over many years? :)

And my mom is hardly relevant to this. As far as I know and am concerned, she has never had sex. Because that's just wrong.
 
mobes23 said:
I love it when nonscientists try to explain science.

Edit: and for what it's worth, Minstrel's got it right.
Click to expand...

He got what right? I had a BS prior to my MBA. I guess they don't teach real science these days?
 
westnob said:
So something like "theory of relativity" which can be proven and exactly described, if complex, is vague? Global Warming has been proven by serious science.
Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
Click to expand...

You may want to learn how to read a graph.
 
PapaG said:
He got what right? I had a BS prior to my MBA. I guess they don't teach real science these days?
Click to expand...

He got the law/theory description right. Just curious, what was your major? My college roommate had a BS and he was poli sci.
 
Minstrel said:
(dv/dt) is the same thing as acceleration. The rate of change in position by time is velocity and the rate of change in velocity by time is acceleration.

I don't know what (dm/dt)--the rate that mass changes over time--is supposed to signify. Newton's laws didn't assume any changes to mass by time. Even Einstein's relativity only posited that mass varies by acceleration...not time.

Are you trying to add in the effects of erosion over many years? :)

And my mom is hardly relevant to this. As far as I know and am concerned, she has never had sex. Because that's just wrong.
Click to expand...

I think what he was trying to say was F = d(momentum)/over time (Conventionally used as (dp/dt), but only if mass is constant), or F=mass*dv/dt. The equation dm/dt*dv/dt =/= F.
 
CO2 rising since 1998, temps actually lowering. I suppose this data does not count? There almost appears to be an inverse relationship between temps and CO2 emissions. Why is that?

new%20graph.bmp
 
PapaG said:
CO2 rising since 1998, temps actually lowering. I suppose this data does not count? There almost appears to be an inverse relationship between temps and CO2 emissions. Why is that?

new%20graph.bmp
Click to expand...

This "theory" of man-made CO2 causing temps to rise isn't even applicable to the most recent decade, and since records only go back ~100 years, it's a large enough data set to question this bunk science.
 
Can you guys post the link to the article behind that graph? Or, better yet, can you explain what MSU and Hadley temps are?
 
mobes23 said:
Can you guys post the link to the article behind that graph? Or, better yet, can you explain what MSU and Hadley temps are?
Click to expand...

They are the two primary standards for assessing global temperature.

The link to the graph is found by right-clicking the graph, and then copying the Properties link.

Here is a wealth of information on the falling temps since 1998 versus the still-increasing CO2.

http://www.google.com/search?q=hadl...s:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7
 
The graph that westnob presented goes only until 2000. Since then, according to what I've heard, global temps have actually been stabilizing or declining. Can anyone confirm this with a link or a graph?
 
PapaG said:
CO2 rising since 1998, temps actually lowering. I suppose this data does not count? There almost appears to be an inverse relationship between temps and CO2 emissions. Why is that?
Click to expand...
I know that's a rhetorical question, but it's exactly the right one. Where are you, Al Gore???
 
Shooter said:
The graph that westnob presented goes only until 2000. Since then, according to what I've heard, global temps have actually been stabilizing or declining. Can anyone confirm this with a link or a graph?
Click to expand...

That graph isn't a true representation of a steady climb, either. It plots points by how they deviate off of the mean, not the actual temperature. A legitimate graph would have ups and downs, with the past 10 years being a down cycle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top