Including at least 600 scientists, who recently signed a declaration criticizing the whole global warming argument.
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.
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
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?
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
ty professor mathematics, is 600/2000 not a lot of people? (perhaps you could help me reduce my fractions too
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.
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.
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)
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).
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
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.
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.
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.
