Letters and Comments

Conflicting Views on Climate Change

By U.S. News Staff

October 9, 2009 RSS Feed Print

Ever notice how climate change deniers always use the same pseudoscientific arguments ["Scientist: Carbon Dioxide Doesn't Cause Global Warming," usnews.com]? That's why most of them are so easy to refute. The idea that other planets in the solar system are also warming because of some common mechanism, and this means we are not responsible for global warming of Earth, is a crock. The other planets have completely separate issues, and some of them are warming for completely different reasons. There is no solar system-wide mechanism that can explain the warming of Earth.

Comment by Eli of CO

Why not show the increase in solar activity matching the temperature increases instead of just asserting that such increases have caused global warming? Have the surface temperatures of any other planets in the solar system shown any temperature increases? This argument is full of holes.

Comment by John Ross of PA

One of the problems with this type of [global warming] discussion is the lack of scientific rigor. People (and the author of the article) throw around the word "studies," as in "armed with studies," without providing a single reference to anything published in a peer reviewed journal. The "studies" mentioned may well have been published in reputable journals and subjected to critical evaluation, but we have no way of knowing without a proper citation. Without such documentation this is just another example of "he said, she said" and is essentially a waste of time.

Comment by John of MN

Even though higher levels of CO2 can act as a plant fertilizer under some conditions, scientists now think that the "CO2 fertilization" effect on crops has been overstated; in natural ecosystems, the fertilization effect can diminish after a few years as plants acclimate. Furthermore, increased CO2 may benefit undesirable, weedy species more than desirable species. Higher levels of CO2 have already caused ocean acidification, and scientists are warning of potentially devastating effects on marine life and fisheries. Moreover, higher levels of regional ozone (smog), a result of warmer temperatures, could worsen respiratory illnesses. Less developed countries and natural ecosystems may not have the capacity to adapt.

Comment by Megan of VA

Ever wonder why, with such a controversial issue, the overall public never is exposed to a serious debate on this subject? I have seen challenges offered by many scientists such as this gentleman, but nothing ever materializes. Anyone have any suggestions as to how this might happen or who may sponsor such an endeavor? I'm not a scientist, politician, or funded special interest, only someone who would love to see some honest dialogue.

Comment by David Miller of FL

Reader Comments Read all comments (17)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

There is global warming, but carbon dioxide has nothing to do with it!

The atmosphere is 17 trillion cubic kilometers and carbon dioxide is less than one percent of it. Basic laws of thermodynamics is the one that governs transfers of heat from one body to another or from one gas element to another. Given the volume of carbon dioxide in relation to total atmosphere, there is simply no way it can cause global warming.

But since the world is warming, in fact it has been warming continuously since the peak of the last ice age; it has been warming even before people started overpopulating some places of the earth and started producing carbon dioxide through industry and the burning of fossil fuel, then there must be another element that is causing the warming of the earth. Carbon dioxide is not the only element that can go up to the atmosphere and contribute to its warming. In fact, water vapor is the better element in terms of bringing heat up from ground to atmosphere and from the atmosphere to the oceans and on the land. Water with 4% has more volume in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide with only .038%. Carbon dioxide is heavier than air, while water vapor is lighter than air, and therefore water gets up to a higher level in the atmosphere while carbon dioxide is sinking back to the oceans and on the land. Water vapor will receive heat from the sun before carbon dioxide gets it.

The problem in the climate change debate is that there is more emotion than basic science. Get the volumes of the elements and the principles of physics that govern heat and energy transfers between the elements and we will begin to make real sense of what essentially is the problem.

Making carbon dioxide as the culprit instead of the growing quantity of water vapors in the atmosphere, will bring us to the wrong solutions to the problem.

Gabriel Atega of CA 11:09AM October 13, 2009

"Forecasts from the IPCC are merely the opinions of some scientists and computer modellers. It is not proper to claim that these are truly scientific forecasts."

Well, it's not just the IPCC that is saying this you know. Have a look at the latest results from the climate change study group at MIT:

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/roulette-0519.html

Would you consider that scientific work?

While you're at it, consider the statements by the NAS and AAAS, the most respected scientific organizations in the world:

http://dels.nas.edu/climatechange/

http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/

These organizations are very careful not to endorse a scientific theory until the evidence supporting it is overwhelming.

Eli of CO 5:41PM October 12, 2009

"The only reasonable scientific interpretation of the lag is that temperature controls carbon dioxide."

The CO2 lag business is part of another common myth. The lag between temperature increase and CO2 level rise during past interglacial periods proves that CO2 level is increased when it gets warmer for other reasons, yes. It is part of a feedback loop.

When temperature increases, the oceans can't hold as much CO2, so the CO2 level in the atmosphere increases. This then causes further warming. It's a cycle. Normally CO2 level is part of a feedback mechanism which responds to forcing coming from other sources, such as variations in the Earth's orbit.

In this case, the forcing is the increasing CO2 level, and other effects such as ocean acidification because the ocean is absorbing more carbon in the form of Carbonic acid, are part of the feedback mechanism.

There is a good article on this here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/

The truth is that this feedback cycle is well-understood, and it is taken into account in all of the current models.

Eli of CO 5:35PM October 12, 2009

Letters and Comments

Welcome to the U.S. News Readers' Letters and Comments blog. Positive or negative, reader feedback provides added perspective to any story. New letters and comments will be posted here several times a week. Thank you for your submission.

advertisement

Cartoons

advertisement