|
Post by hunter on Aug 21, 2009 1:40:01 GMT
"Obviously a lot of acrimony here, like most places where climate is discussed. I would like to attempt to refocus the discussion once again, but this time with a slight twist. What I am most interested in is not whether or not one believes in AGW or not, but the psychology behind the personal decision to tilt one way or the other. This hard for each of us to even think about. Essentially it boils down to just this. "
For me, it was the similarity of behavior between the promoters of AGW and the cheesiness of unethical marketing schemes. When they resorted to cheap tricks like heating up the Congressional hearing room where Hansen made his first predictions for public consumption, for instance. Another example was when I started noticing the similarities between apocalypse myths of the past and the AGW predictions of today. Still another was the defensiveness and aggression of the AGW believers. I have thought for the last 5 years or so that AGW is nothing more than a social movement, which uses a thin veneer of scientific sounding terms and claims. The final straw for me is the persistence of AGW believers and promoters in confusing AGW with climate science, as if AGW is some sort of basic physical process, and not a complex model, very similar in fact to an engineering model.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 21, 2009 1:52:45 GMT
I am a bit of a maverick....surprise surprise. And I am also blessed with a fairly keen intelect. I live in an area where corn was only grown for sileage prior to the early 70's. When the scientists were talking about the next ice age, I started growing corn for grain. Everyone thought I was totally nuts. When my yields surpassed 150 bushels per acre on a regular basis, other folks got wayyy more interested. I figured a 30 year run was about as much as I could get as I had looked at state climatology records and here we seem to run in roughly 30 year cycles. When we were warming in the 80's, 90's, I thought co2 had accelerated that warming, and believed the science backed me up. What started me questioning that science was a little town just to the west of me that celebrates Aug the Duce. Had some relatives come over from Iceland and we were talking about climate change etc. They looked at me and laughed. They were from Iceland and asked didn't I KNOW that we are a lottttt colder now than we were 800 years prior? Didn't I know anything of my heritage etc? Well, that caused me to think in a different light, and as you mentioned, I started looking at longer term cycles etc. With the advent of the internet, and being able to read papers published etc, I realized that the people that thought they knew so much about physics and climate knew nothing at all about either. That turned me....not so much to a skeptic as some would call me, but as a realist. I looked closer at geo records etc, and realized that we have cooled significantly since the optimum of this cycle. And also, living in a glacier formed lakebed helped me realize that we started warming longgggg before co2 became an issue. Once I started following the money......then I knew what this was all about. NOT one scientific lick of evidence on a global scale, but lotsssssss of evidence of control through the idea of taxing this "new found" source of individual liberty and flexibility of the masses. That is the true reason for the carbon tax etc. Control. And I don't do well in a controlled environment. And those in power recognize that I don't do well in that environment and can move people to action.
|
|
|
Post by sentient on Aug 21, 2009 3:37:34 GMT
OK, I didn't do the job right the first time, but this is more like it. Not so much what one believes, but why one believes it. Why one believes what one believes is a personal matter and is not open for debate. It is how one got to their belief structure, not so much what ones belief structure is. The process of thought, not the thought so much itself.
Excellent folks. More. More. GLC and Chrisc, I want to know your stories too. No judgments, you have already done that. And I have no right to judge that. Why and how did you do it? Why and how did each of us do it?
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Aug 21, 2009 7:38:48 GMT
Personally I used to just accept that the "consensus" was probably right. Then I started looking at the data and it just got worse and worse. It's just loads of the worst kinds of "science". I could run on for hours and hours about the stupid assumptions that are presented as "observed" evidence for global warming....
...but I won't.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Aug 21, 2009 9:41:13 GMT
Obviously a lot of acrimony here, like most places where climate is discussed. There is not a lot of acrimony on my part. Maybe a bit of irritation. You are misposing the question. The physics tells us that greenhouse gases such as CO2, water vapour and so on keep the earth warm. The physics also tells us that increasing the amounts of these gases tend to reduce the outgoing long wave radiation - at a first level, this suggests the earth will warm more. This is basic high school physics and is widely accepted by otherwise "sceptic" scientists (Lindzen, Roy Spencer, John Christy for example). Evidence from past climate suggests that the climate is quite sensitive to changes, meaning that the amount of warming or cooling that occurs in response to a cause of warming or cooling is more than you would expect from just the cause. The models are tools to examine climate phenomena, and have proven themselves useful in making predictions about the response of climate to impacts (not just increasing CO2). The models provide no comfort to those who believe that somehow the earth will magically adapt to get rid of "excess heat". I doubted the ability of scientists to model the climate, so doubted their ability to predict warming. Then I discovered that the models aren't the be all and end all of "global warming science". As a physicist I believe in cause and effect - OK there are quantum issues and chaos issues that confuse things, but in the case of past climate change there is often an identifiable trigger to global climate change, and often the trigger is quite minor (the redistribution of sunlight due to the Milankovitch cycles for example). Now, we have a large trigger. CO2 is a known greenhouse and the impact of its increase can be estimated, and is found to be strong compared with other known triggers of climate change. There is also evidence that CO2 and temperature demonstrate a correlation. Have a look at the literature on silicate weathering and its relationship to temperature and CO2 concentrations. So we really *do* have an idea that the climate is sensitive. We *do* know that CO2 exerts a "forcing" on the climate. And we *do* know that a change in climate has a cost on society. So looking at the risks, I would say we have enough information to suggest that we should plan to reduce CO2 emissions so as to reduce its possible impact. Since you are interested in the psychology of global warming belief or unbelief, I assume you are aware that you are not the only paleoclimatologist that takes the view (an I hope I'm not misrepresenting you too much) that since climate has always changed in the past we might assume that current observed change is "business as usual" and has nothing to do with what man has done. As I've said above, I find this slightly counterintuitive.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Aug 21, 2009 10:18:22 GMT
Excellent folks. More. More. GLC and Chrisc, I want to know your stories too. No judgments, you have already done that. And I have no right to judge that. Why and how did you do it? Why and how did each of us do it?
I'm not sure if this is relevant but there's a strong probability that ChrisC (and socold) and myself disagree on a number of aspects of AGW. Somehow, though, if we don't all accept that CO2 has no effect we're all lumped together as alarmists.
I 'believe' CO2 must have some effect because of the basic physics (and chemistry). CO2 absorbs LW IR radiation within the range of certain wavelengths. Since we can calculate the IR transmission (and absorption) through the atmosphere in the presence of different CO2 concentrations, I believe the estimated ~1 deg warming for 2xCO2 is fairly robust.
I don't favour large positive feedbacks, so I don't expect the warming to be much more than ~1 deg. ChrisC and Socold, on the other hand, do think there will be a large feedback factor. I understand their arguments for this and while they are certainly plausible, I'm not convinced. My thoughts on AGW are not actually that much different to those of Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer and a number of other mainstream 'sceptics', though I'm not convinced by RL's assertion that there is a negative feedback (implying warming will be much less than 1 deg).
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Aug 21, 2009 11:15:39 GMT
glc writes "Since we can calculate the IR transmission (and absorption) through the atmosphere in the presence of different CO2 concentrations, I believe the estimated ~1 deg warming for 2xCO2 is fairly robust."
I am not sure how many times we need to go through this. Belief is one thing; proving it scientifically is quite another. You have a whole series of equations that seem to assume that the only way energy is tranferred in the atmosphere is by radiation. You seem to assume that this is all that is required to estimate how much temeratures will rise if the concentration of CO2 is doubled. I find this idea to be completely unbelievable. The other ways energy is transferred, conduction, convection and the latent heat of water simply cannot be omitted, IMHO. And you have provided no reference that shows that your estimates are "robust" if these other methods are omitted from the estimates.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Aug 21, 2009 12:21:26 GMT
I am not sure how many times we need to go through this. Belief is one thing; proving it scientifically is quite another. You have a whole series of equations that seem to assume that the only way energy is tranferred in the atmosphere is by radiation.
No you are wrong here. They don't "assume that the only way energy is tranferred in the atmosphere is by radiation".
The average temperature at the earth's surface is ~288k which means (by S-B) that it emits ~390 w/m2. The convection, conduction and latent heat which you keep banging on about is not included in the 390 w/m2. Of the 390 w/m2 around 235 w/m2 makes it out into space. The rest is absorbed by the atmosphere. If we increase the amount of greenhouse gases we will increase the amount of absorption which lead to further warming. We've been over this lots of times so I'm saying no more on that.
Right! what about convection and latent heat. They DO cool the surface but the energy carried by these processes is absorbed by the atmosphere and/or transported polewards where it ultimately contributes to the average surface temperature. It means that temperatures at the poles, even in winter, don't plummet towards absolute zero (yes the oceans also play a part but there is a transport of air).
It is the LW radiation that is emitted from the surface due to the relatively even temperature distribution that we are interested in. Latent Heat, Conduction and Convection redistribute heat. i.e. they move heat from the tropics to the atmosphere and to the more extreme latitudes. It is only by radiation that the climate system cools.
Jim - I've written this (underlined above) dozens of times. Not only have I written it at least half a dozen other people have written it.
If there were no absorbing gases in the atmosphere then the LW radiation would be emitted from the earth directly to space. There are absorbing gases and it's not. We can calculate the effect of each of the absorbing gases and analyse emission spectra to confirm the effect. If we add more absorbing gases we can calculate the reduction in the amount of the initial ~390 w/m2 which will be transmitted through the atmosphere. At TOA this will be ~4 w/m2 for a doubling of CO2.
The radiative transfer equations calculate the transmission of IR from the surface through the atmoshere. But we are talking about a surface which has already lost heat in e.g the sahara, and gained heat in e.g the arctic via convection etc. I've rushed this post - so check for errors.
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Aug 21, 2009 12:46:44 GMT
Obviously a lot of acrimony here, like most places where climate is discussed. There is not a lot of acrimony on my part. Maybe a bit of irritation. You are misposing the question. The physics tells us that greenhouse gases such as CO2, water vapour and so on keep the earth warm. The physics also tells us that increasing the amounts of these gases tend to reduce the outgoing long wave radiation - at a first level, this suggests the earth will warm more. This is basic high school physics and is widely accepted by otherwise "sceptic" scientists (Lindzen, Roy Spencer, John Christy for example). Evidence from past climate suggests that the climate is quite sensitive to changes, meaning that the amount of warming or cooling that occurs in response to a cause of warming or cooling is more than you would expect from just the cause. The models are tools to examine climate phenomena, and have proven themselves useful in making predictions about the response of climate to impacts (not just increasing CO2). The models provide no comfort to those who believe that somehow the earth will magically adapt to get rid of "excess heat". I doubted the ability of scientists to model the climate, so doubted their ability to predict warming. Then I discovered that the models aren't the be all and end all of "global warming science". As a physicist I believe in cause and effect - OK there are quantum issues and chaos issues that confuse things, but in the case of past climate change there is often an identifiable trigger to global climate change, and often the trigger is quite minor (the redistribution of sunlight due to the Milankovitch cycles for example). Now, we have a large trigger. CO2 is a known greenhouse and the impact of its increase can be estimated, and is found to be strong compared with other known triggers of climate change. There is also evidence that CO2 and temperature demonstrate a correlation. Have a look at the literature on silicate weathering and its relationship to temperature and CO2 concentrations. So we really *do* have an idea that the climate is sensitive. We *do* know that CO2 exerts a "forcing" on the climate. And we *do* know that a change in climate has a cost on society. So looking at the risks, I would say we have enough information to suggest that we should plan to reduce CO2 emissions so as to reduce its possible impact. Since you are interested in the psychology of global warming belief or unbelief, I assume you are aware that you are not the only paleoclimatologist that takes the view (an I hope I'm not misrepresenting you too much) that since climate has always changed in the past we might assume that current observed change is "business as usual" and has nothing to do with what man has done. As I've said above, I find this slightly counterintuitive. Steve makes the classic fallacy, the one that AGW promotion depends on: greenhouse = AGW
|
|
|
Post by steve on Aug 21, 2009 14:30:41 GMT
glc writes "Since we can calculate the IR transmission (and absorption) through the atmosphere in the presence of different CO2 concentrations, I believe the estimated ~1 deg warming for 2xCO2 is fairly robust." I am not sure how many times we need to go through this. Belief is one thing; proving it scientifically is quite another. You have a whole series of equations that seem to assume that the only way energy is tranferred in the atmosphere is by radiation. You seem to assume that this is all that is required to estimate how much temeratures will rise if the concentration of CO2 is doubled. I find this idea to be completely unbelievable. The other ways energy is transferred, conduction, convection and the latent heat of water simply cannot be omitted, IMHO. And you have provided no reference that shows that your estimates are "robust" if these other methods are omitted from the estimates. Jim, Just stay out of this for once as we know what you think and we've said why you have got this wrong. You will likely never agree that you have misunderstood this but rest assured I think of you every time I make the point. For now it is another distraction from Sentient's question.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Aug 21, 2009 14:40:00 GMT
Steve makes the classic fallacy, the one that AGW promotion depends on: greenhouse = AGW Hunter, your sentence doesn't make sense.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Aug 21, 2009 14:42:17 GMT
Excellent folks. More. More. GLC and Chrisc, I want to know your stories too. No judgments, you have already done that. And I have no right to judge that. Why and how did you do it? Why and how did each of us do it? I 'believe' CO2 must have some effect because of the basic physics (and chemistry). CO2 absorbs LW IR radiation within the range of certain wavelengths. Since we can calculate the IR transmission (and absorption) through the atmosphere in the presence of different CO2 concentrations, I believe the estimated ~1 deg warming for 2xCO2 is fairly robust. I don't favour large positive feedbacks, so I don't expect the warming to be much more than ~1 deg. ChrisC and Socold, on the other hand, do think there will be a large feedback factor. I understand their arguments for this and while they are certainly plausible, I'm not convinced. How plausible do they have to be before one considers whether it is worth taking the risk?
|
|
jtom
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 248
|
Post by jtom on Aug 21, 2009 15:37:30 GMT
Steve wrote: "There is also evidence that CO2 and temperature demonstrate a correlation. Have a look at the literature on silicate weathering and its relationship to temperature and CO2 concentrations."
But the research did not, could not, show if CO2 drove temps, temps drove CO2, or if something else was driving both.
Somewhat like GLC, I wouldn't be surprised if CO2 had a minor impact on climate (one easily overwhelmed by other contributors). Before believing any more than that, I would at least like to see some evidence that it is warming!
If it is warming, then I would want to see an exhaustive cost/benefit analysis of a world two degrees warmer than the avg. temps over the past century or so before deciding what to do next - if anything.
We have a 'little crisis' ever month; a bigger one yearly; and biggie one every decade or so. The news media and hype is a lot like a group of elementary school kids playing soccer (football) - everybody unthinkingly runs to the ball. I don't think I've seen any of these crisis, and certainly none of the 'biggies', ever live up to the fears.
They do keep a lot of people hooked on antidepressants, though.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Aug 21, 2009 17:33:22 GMT
Steve wrote: "There is also evidence that CO2 and temperature demonstrate a correlation. Have a look at the literature on silicate weathering and its relationship to temperature and CO2 concentrations." But the research did not, could not, show if CO2 drove temps, temps drove CO2, or if something else was driving both. Somewhat like GLC, I wouldn't be surprised if CO2 had a minor impact on climate (one easily overwhelmed by other contributors). Before believing any more than that, I would at least like to see some evidence that it is warming! The CO2/temperature correlation part was mainly in response to Sentient saying that he wasn't aware of evidence for CO2 having an impact on climate, so I didn't make it clear that the evidence also demonstrates that the correlation suggests that temperatures are strongly proportional to CO2 levels. Obviously I don't think it is reasonable to assume that CO2 never drives temperatures because of the other evidence I have presented. It is warming, and a cost-benefit analysis has been done. Though I'm not sure how you calculate the financial cost of mass starvation and forced mass emigration that 2C of warming will cause.
|
|
jtom
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 248
|
Post by jtom on Aug 21, 2009 17:51:51 GMT
If that cost-benefit analysis showed "mass starvation and forced mass emigration " despite all the *pertinent* research showing higher CO2 level results in BOTH higher crop yields AND the ability to grow crops in areas where they would not otherwise grow at all; AND ignored historical evidence of the positive impact of warmer temps on Mankind, then let me amend my statement:
I would want to see a cost-benefit analysis from a REPUTABLE source that included scientists covering multiple fields of expertise.
|
|