*But however you answer my question, don’t cite me no scientific evidence.
Someone sent me a terrific set of the “deniers rules for debate” from Mercurius. Let me introduce them by way of a February 2008 email exchange I had with a denier over the headline question (see here). The denier wrote:
I have been doing enormous amounts of research in this global warming (caused by man) theories and have concluded that there is not ONE shred of evidence to back it up. Can you PROVE to me that global warming is being caused by mankind?
Hmm. Not one shred of evidence? “PROVE”–in all caps, too! I know this is mostly pointless, but still, it was the day after my daughter’s first birthday, and I was feeling in good spirits about humanity, so I replied:
This one is easy. Either you believe in science — i.e. we went to the moon, you go to the doctor, you have IT equipment you rely on — or you don’t. If you don’t, I can’t “prove” anything to anybody. If you do, then the IPCC reports — which are nothing more than a literature review by the top scientists in the world, commissioned by and summarized for policymakers, signed off by every friggin’ govt in the world — are as much proof as a human being could possibly want.
Yes, I was younger and naive back then. Now I wouldn’t strike thru friggin’. So he replied:
Sorry Joe but your email back to me is not proof of evidence. As for the IPCC report, I don’t buy into what they say. That is not proof. And yes, I very much believe in science which is why I don’t believe in humans have caused global warming. But my question is simple, what scientific proof can you show me, and I am not talking about some report from the UN, that humans are causing the Earth’s temperature to rise. Also, what is the right temperature for the Earth to be at?
Yes, well, the deniers, they believe in “science,” they just don’t believe in scientists or hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific articles or scientific “evidence,” which brings me to Mercurius’s list of things the deniers will accept as evidence:
1) Nothing that was recorded by instruments such as weather-stations, ocean buoys or satellite data. Since all instruments are subject to error, we cannot use them to measure climate.
2) Nothing that has been corrected to account for the error of recording instruments. Any corrected data is a fudge. You must use only the raw data, which is previously disqualified under rule #1. Got that? OK, moving along…
3) Nothing that was produced by a computer model. We all know that you can’t trust computer models, and they have a terrible track record in any industrial, architectural, engineering, astronomical or medical context.
4) Nothing that was researched or published by a scientist. Such appeals to authority are invalid. We all know that scientists are just writing these papers to keep their grant money.
Funny stuff.
Well, it would be funny, if it weren’t true. Or is its very truth what makes it funny? [Note: I am buying a book for my forthcoming Maine vacation that I hope will answer that last question -- And Here's the Kicker: Conversations with 21 Top Humor Writers on their Craft.]
The only scientific evidence that deniers will accept is data that has been massaged by fellow deniers — even especially ones who have a long track record of flawed or biased analysis (see “Should you believe anything John Christy and Roy Spencer say?”
As Mercurius notes:
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and I’m sure you’d agree that any evidence which meets my criteria would be extraordinary indeed.
h/t Deltoid.
Related Post:
RSS
Subscribe by Email
Follow Climate Progress on Twitter
You forgot the most important one:
5) Nothing that would lead them to consider changing either their attitudes toward industry or their lifestyle in even the slightest manner.
Last week, there was an “Talk to the Times” column in the New York Times where readers could submit questions to Mr. Fountain, a NYT science writer. A question was posted about the ‘conflict’ among climate scientists and how ther are two sides to the issue (!). I believe it was answered very weakly by Mr. Fountain, who said that he lets Andy Revkin do the heavy lifting on climate change information.
http://www.nytimes.com/ 2009/ 07/ 26/ business/ media/ 26askthetimes.html?pagewanted=all
Mr. Fountain could have done a much better job answering this question and put to rest the notion that there are two sides among qualified climate scientists.
doesn’t the lack of warming lately puzzle you just a bit?
old warming = natural variability
new warming = humanity
current lack of warming = natural variability
Ocean cooling = natural variability
Ocean warming = humanity
old Sea level rise = NV
new sea level rise = H
Tuvalu not drowning out after all = no comment
[JR: Letting this one through since it validates the original post....]
Joe, you are aware that the back page function does not seem to work correctly on your site. It always takes you to the top of the last page.
[JR: Not sure what you mean.]
Between the IPCC report and Naomi Oreskes’ 2004 survey I don’t know how these guys legitimize their disbelief. Seriously, what do they say when it’s not “I don’t buy it”? And yeah, MSM is pretty much worthless in explaining how those two cut through denier arguments, as though there aren’t broad-based literature surveys that demonstrate scientific consensus, and a unity of opinion in every major national academy of science.
Well, there is proof and then there is proof. From
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proof
“the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact”.
Some minds, it seeems, just won’t be compeled to accept inconvenient truths. Sad. Possibly tragic.
I guess that the deniers do not have a garden. Every year my fruit trees assure me that this year, it is a little warmer. Leaf drop in the fall is a little later, and bud break in the spring is a little earlier.
Every farmer knows this. Every gardener knows this. Every hunter knows this. Every bird watcher knows this. Anybody that goes outside with their eyes open knows this.
So these guys do not go outside, and they do not trust the science that brings them their cell phones, computers, and TVs. Fine! If they do not believe in radiation physics, they should not be allowed to use devices that rely on radiation physics. Anybody who denies AGW should have their cell phone and internet (optical fiber) privileges revoked. If they want to communicate, they can send a post card.
At some point, certain belief systems become a hazard to society as a whole, and the groups with those belief systems should be marginalized so society as a whole can survive. For example, we now vaccinate over the objections of some groups, because it is in the long term interest of society. In the same way that we no longer let a few individual sabatoge our vaccination programs, we should not let a few individuals sabatoge programs against global warming.
Glad to hear you’re taking a book on humor on your vacation. I believe more people will do something about global warming if solutions are emphasized and a little humor is thrown in once in awhile. Keep up the good work!
Hi Joe,
It is definitely both funny and sad when people don’t understand the tools scientists address complex and hard-to-measure issues.
One bit of commentary:
I’m a bit concerned about your frequent use of the word “believe” when you discuss science – saying that people either “believe in science” or do not “believe in climate change.” One of the reasons that science is so powerful is that there is no need to “believe” it – evidence either supports or disproves hypotheses and, given a reasonable framework for what defines statistically relevant evidence, we can generalize our conclusions and gain insight into the laws of nature. No leaps of faith here, just measurement, mathematics, and logic.
When you use a phrase like “I believe in science,” or “I believe in climate change,” it invariably invokes religious phrases like “I believe in God.” This may be a very dangerous thing to do, as neither science, environmentalism, nor climate change should be approached in the way that religion is approached.
Although the notion of “belief” may provide a useful semantic short-cut, the dogmatic responses of so many people in the climate discussion seem to indicate that it would ultimately be in our best interest to avoid this word/idea, opting instead for something like “I understand the science of climate change,” or “this man claims that the temperature record is inconclusive — he is wrong,” or other declarative, irreligious phrases. I think your readers are usually informed enough to understand these more subtle and accurate statements, and the avoidance of religious overtones would be productive.
What do you think?
[JR: Yes, that was an old post. "Understand" is better and I've been trying to use it more.]
Joe Romm — After reading dcomments (maybe writing one), using the usual browser features to return to the previous page used to leave the reader right where she was on thee page, ready to scroll down to the next thread. Recently this nice feature went away; instead returning to the previous page always leave one at the top of the page, necessitating lots of scrolling to work back down again.
Since we can’t afford to wait until climate change is so bad that all the deniers finally get it, I think we’d accomplish more by persuading enough people that acting costs little and carries enough other benefits (clean air, green jobs, etc.) that they should get out of the way long enough for action to take root. That, and we simply have to accomplish what we can, despite the resistance, and hope that enough people see the value of what we’re doing that society as a whole will move.
A big part of the problem is that scientists are generally conditioned to report their conclusions in carefully crafted language to reflect what the data would support. Deniers and their hired gun “scientists” offer up unmitigated crap without giving it a second thought. Then lazy journalists, in their zeal to present “balanced” stories give equal weight to both sides. Thus, quotes from well-researched, peer-reviewed scientists are juxtaposed with quotes from liars and hired guns. This leaves the general public to conclude that there is still a “scientific debate” that still rages.
I’ve a simple answer to deniers. When it comes to science I’d rather beleieve scientists than Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney.
If Mercurius doesn’t believe in anything generated from a computer model he might start by switching off his computer and using as a door stop or, otherwise, expensive paper weight because computer operations are based on Dr. John von Neumann architecture model of a modern computer. Uh oh.
Computer models are used to test so many products in manufacturing today that it would be impossible to get these goods to market at a reasonable cost without them.
There are crash test computer modeling progragms that determine the safety of automobiles without physically crashing the car. These are used not in place of physical crash testing but in order to test certain aspects of car safety. I guess Mercurius better get a bike or walk from now on since he doesn’t trust anything developed by a computer model.
Oh, one more thing, aircraft are tested with computer models too. There goes that trip to the Caymans, drat!
There’s a major disconnect in terms of how people on “our” side deal with the deniers: Many of us (including myself all too often) act as if the challenge is to change the deniers’ minds. That’s not the point. You can’t possibly change their minds, and they’re not trying to change yours. They’re playing to the mainstreamers who wander by this little bit of street theater as we debate them, in an effort to convince some, plant doubt in the minds of others, etc. That’s why they repeat the same laughable, discredited nonsense endlessly online–they know that for some of the people wandering by on the Internet it’s new to them. Those bystanders don’t know the facts, don’t know which statements are lies or blatant cherry picking of data, etc. They just see the equivalent of a shouting match between a college professor and pro wrestler. Guess who puts on the best show for someone who watches for five minutes and then moves on?
Given the rate at which the Arctic is heading towards being ice free some summer distressingly soon, it’ll be interesting to see how the deniers handle it.
I’m guessing it will be studiously ignored.
It’s not that the “proof seekers” don’t believe the science, the truth is they don’t care. They care about control and power and will do anything to get it … beware! They will spin anything to deceive the uninformed or ignorant. Their lies are like candy to the mind. Their package of illusions is small government, low taxes (high debt), a free (lawless) market, so that Wall Street can continue its corrupt greed filled ways. As long as the unethical mass media publish their lines the lie lives. Oh, how they peddle their platitudes and often debunked talking points because it worked in the past so it should work again. Those who accept nothing as proof really could care the lest if the world becomes unfit for the masses. When the infamous ‘Hoaxer’ makes his dumb outlandish claim, he is trying to make us the fool. His campaign funds are bloated with dirty fossil fuel dollars. His day is coming!
rlb
Some of the deniers are conscious liars with an agenda, others are simply ignorant. Many of the latter are too limited to understand that they really don’t know much about science, or logic, probability, and reasonable summation. They will never change. As conditions worsen, there will always be another explanation more appealing to them than conclusions reached through empirical methods.
Worsening conditions will probably give more impetus to a generally complacent electorate. If and when that day comes, obstructionism will become political suicide for our fearless leaders. By then, it’ll likely be too late to preserve much of the biosphere, or even our civilization. That is, if it isn’t already.
The only”proof” they would accept is if you could dig up something in the bible that has god warning his minions that if they burn to much fossil fuels bad things will happen.
Otherwise their standard of proof is similar to that needed to assure a anti-nuclear activist that a reactor is safe. The scientist keeps going back and adding more zero to his safety probability of 99.9999 percent safe. But the effort is futile, as no possible number of 9’s will ever be enough. And our “proof” of global warming probably only has one or two nines.
But, mainly it is a matter of trust. Red blooded rightwingers are to be trusted. But, scientists are considered to be left wing influenced fraudsters, who are guided by an agenda that includes establishing a new world order.
You can’t PROVE anything to a closed mind. The point of the denial of facts is to continue in the life style they are convinced is their God given right as Americans. You can hear the wails “I just want things the way they were, use it a little throw it away. buy new, drive a Hummer with gas prices below $2.00 a gallon. If it weren’t for the scientists I would still have all these things just the way it use to be. How does “Save the planet for the children” compete with that self-centered view?
Here’s an op-ed I just wrote for the Portland Oregonian about our recent heat wave with two 106 degree days (all-time record is 107), 10 consecutive days of 90 degrees plus (previous all-time record was 8 days).
I feel this is something TV meteorologists should reference, including the fact that NCDC-NOAA has over twice as many daily heat records than cold records this decade (from Jan 1, 2000 through July 21, 2009 there were 288,783 heat records vs. 140,072 cold records).
The ASSes slimed me with a hundred or so comically pathetic (or vice versa) comments. I ask deniers if they believe in the science reviewed in the IPCC Report, then when they say they don’t I ask them if they believe in the Periodic Table of Elements, then when they say they don’t I ask them if they believe in gravity, or “When you jump on a trampoline are you worried about coming back down?”
Anyway, here’s the op-ed. Evidently the Oregonian’s offering some sort of subscription special for comments from Neanderthals.
http://www.oregonlive.com/ opinion/ index.ssf/ 2009/ 08/ climate_change_teachable_momen.html
There is a solution. Climate deniers should be encouraged to move south of the Mason-Dixon line and to the great American Southwest because, as you know, the earth is actually getting colder, not warmer.
The problem with more hot records than cold ones has two dimensions.
More hot days are easy given the longevity of the stations involved. What is harder to explain is why there are cold records being set. Again it is more likely longevity than climate.
The science of deniers is funny as Joe said. They believe every word of the “scientists” who say a priori AGW is rubbish. We must go on without the burden to notice this miserable lot of idiots and follow the real science. And so no harm done.
After the email I have had today- I so know where you are coming from Joe.
Dan
It’s just a huge waste of time arguing with deniers, and I’ve taken to simply telling them that. As in, “Your arguments are crap, they have been debunked over and over and over, so please stop wasting my time”.
That’s probably doesn’t help either, but at least it’s an honest reaction to people who spout absolute nonsense. Arguing with your dog over the solution to the quadratic equation is not a good tactic, and so far that’s the approach the climate people have taken. No wonder it’s not working.
Ok, it’s not fair comparing deniers with dogs. Dogs don’t actively deny science even while using televisions, cell phones, microwave ovens, and the thousands of other products developed by scientists.
When some fool says “The world is cooling, and I won’t except any evidence that it isn’t”. There just isn’t anything left except to say that they are wrong, it’s warming, it’s proven warming, and they are idiots.
Do these people understand what cause the temperature of the earth to change in relation to natural variability. Milankovitch cycles that redistribute the Suns radiation over the earth and its potency over large time scales of 21,000, 42,000 and 100,000 years. If not these cycles then it must be the Sun and its radiation output and if its outoput is not much then what exactly ?
If the cycles are nominal and so is the Suns output then what is causing all the worry. GHGs are another variable as are cooling factors but as the world is warming what exactly is causing it. do the math, the analysis and the conclusion, >90% GHG is likely. Yikes!!
Haha, “climate deniers”. The terminology on here gets funnier by the day.
The essence of the AGW cult is that mankind must extinguish itself for the planet to be saved.
I think we should be happy to live in a phase of world climate that’s fairly warm. I wouldn’t want an ice age – but if there was to come one, we couldn’t do anything about it.
My ongoing debate with my local climate denier has taken an interesting turn. His standard line is you can’t believe anyting scientists tell you. With health care a hot topic, he’s informed me he’s completely against universal health insurance. When I asked why, his answer is that he doesn’t want his taxes paying for helping people who have engaged in unhealthy behavior like smoking. So I ask the obvious question: why do you believe the scientists who tell us smoking is bad for your health, but not the scientists who tell us humans are causing global warming? He has not answered the question.
Dennis: the same here. As a doctor I say to the patient: you have cancer. When they here they have cancer, no one, and just no one disbelieves me. When you have cancer, you believe in science, 100% of us. Be sure. There is no one cancer sceptic in the world.
Proof?
Sea level rise. Whether it is rising from thermal expansion, or ice melting, or both, it is rising from warming.
Increased CO2 in the atmosphere reduces the amount of IR escaping the planet. Planet gets warmer.
Increased CO2 in the atmosphere is directly traceable to fossil fuel combustion, which is man made.
Sea level rise, IR absorption, fossil fuel extraction/combustion are all directly observable.
Of course, this would not constitute “proof” of AGW to Mercurious, this would in fact be proof of a gigantic consipracy to force humans into enslavement under an alien led UN.
Pete and Michael: use a couple of hours to study good science: I recommend How to talk to a climate skeptic. As a starter, then go on.
I frequently get in discussions with denialists, both in person and email and facebook. Sometimes it’s because I’ve been pushing the envelope; sometimes it’s people people are making sneering arguments that I feel compelled to respond to.
However, it’s easy for a denialist to simply link to a website as their argument. I agree they can suck your time (and I’m just a part time climate change advocate, nothing like the people around this blog).
I find that sending this link that debunks popular climate change arguments and not engaging them until they read the debunking first. Often it suffices to send the person a single URL corresponding to the specific denialist argument. (My only complaint about this excellent debunking site is that they are too tolerant of reader comments, but I guess a little openness can be good in this case).
One subtext of this site is that many denialist arguments are superficial and easily accounted for by the scientific community.
Of course, this blog accomplishes a similar purpose….
good interview:
http://www.abc.net.au/ rn/ counterpoint/ stories/ 2009/ 2644270.htm
Man, people on both side of this debate are so boneheaded its outrageous. The layman on both sides favorite method of argument is the tried and true ad hominem attack (either Al Gore is an Nazi or Patrick Michaels and the other skeptics are in the pockets of the oil industry).
Seriously guys, how about a real debate on the issues. I’ll start:
1) CO2 has a demonstrated warming effect, this much is known. It is also known to have a diminishing returns effect, meaning that a change from 300 PPM to 400 PPM would have a lesser effect than a 200 PPM change to 300 PPM change ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL.
[JR: Utterly irrelevant.]
2) The models used to predict climate change, employ numerous feedback loops to get the dramatic warming that they project. If none of these feedback loops were included, the projected warming would be much less significant.
[JR: And if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a go-cart. Unfortunately, the feedbacks are real, demonstrated, and worse than most models incorporate.]
3) The models, when back tested with known historical atmospheric conditions do not produce the temperatures that correspond with that time period. There are many attempts to explain the problems with these models, from Aersol forcing to misunderstandings about feedback loops.
[JR: Quite, quite wrong. In fact, it is only the models that incorporate all known forcings that correctly reproduced temperatures over the past century.]
4)Congress’s answer to the Climate Change problem is the Waxman bill, which even if enacted and enforced would have an extremely small effect on climate, under 1/10th of one degree C.
[JR: Quite wrong. This country's "answer" is for the richest country in the world that is responsible for the most cumulative pollution to finally catch up to the other rich countries, start to take action, and work with the rest of the world to solve the problem.]
5)Recent peer reviewed studies predict that this lull in temperature advancement may very well last till 2020.
[JR: One study, debunked here, says that -- a study that in any case warns warming may be worse than the models you dislike say. Three others concluded we will see record temperatures over the next few years.]
Feel free to debate me on any of these points, before I try to draw any implications from them.
[JR: Feel free to ignore this comment, which I am just letting go throws so people will continue to see what we are up against in trying to explain the actual science to the public.]
Michael on post #27 says:
“The essence of the AGW cult is that mankind must extinguish itself for the planet to be saved.”
———–
What a load of blarney. I don’t envy those of you who deal with this kind of rubbish on a daily basis. It’s a Sisyphean task.
[JR: Quite, quite wrong. In fact, it is only the models that incorporate all known forcings that correctly reproduced temperatures over the past century.]
Do you know what forcing is? Modelers add variables until they get the temperatures they need. So clearly they are going to correctly reproduce the temperatures with forcing, like the aersol forcing I mentioned.
[JR: Quite wrong. This country's "answer" is for the richest country in the world that is responsible for the most cumulative pollution to finally catch up to the other rich countries, start to take action, and work with the rest of the world to solve the problem.]
Any proof that I am wrong? Please show me the climate model that demonstrates that the decrease in CO2 emissions we expect to get from Waxman will have a statistically significant impact on climate.
As for catching up with other rich countries, why should we adopt a treaty like Kyoto, when almost no country that ratified the treaty actually met their emissions targets?
[JR: Quite, quite wrong. Comment elsewhere.]
Is this not a signal that treaties like this do not work?
What moderation do you have in store for my comment JR? Do you have nothing to say about the failure of Kyoto and what that implies about similiar legislation here in the US?
[JR: You are on permanent moderation because you are trying to spread disinformation. Kyoto did NOT fail -- see "Europe poised to meet Kyoto target: Does this mean the much-maligned European Trading System is a success?"]
Richard Brenne, thanks for the link and for writing your op-ed. As if on cue today’s Oregonian includes this gem (link below) from a physicist with an obvious policy bias purporting to refute decades of IPCC climate science using familiar and debunked skeptic talking points. If Professor Fulks has disproven the IPCC’s findings and conclusions then by all means let him submit his work for peer review. Sadly, to the general public, opinion pieces like this appear credible and perhaps even authoritative. Continuing to publish unsupported and unscientific contrarian views as “science” casts doubt and delays or waters down needed action. The Oregonian’s editors know better. Therein lies the true media evil.
http://www.oregonlive.com/ opinion/ index.ssf/ 2009/ 08/ heat_wave_yes_warming_no.html
After reading the responses to the excellent op-ed piece in The Portland Oregonian about the recent heat wave in the Pacific Northwest(see link in comment number 20), I am dismayed to see that the deniers appear to be winning quite a few “hearts and minds” of the American public. As an environmental scientist, I can attest that most of my fellow scientists are just too darn polite. Also, most scientists sound indecisive and wishy-washy to the general public. Time to step up the game and start communicating clearly, strongly, and with no apologies, as James Hansen, Joe Romm, and others are doing. I think it’s going to be a long and hard-fought battle to convince the American public on the reality of climate change, but the stakes are high and clearly worth fighting for.
Ross, I read your comment listing information that you believe is known to be true and almost cried. All of the points you list are either wrong, irrelevant, or mis-leading. I was thinking, do we need to go down this list yet one more time, and debunk these, but fortunately JR responded quickly.
You say: “Seriously guys, how about a real debate on the issues. I’ll start:” It is clear you really don’t know enough to debate this. In a science debate, then at least the judges should be scientists who have studied and worked enough in the field, to understand the science being debated!!! And in fact, every time a new paper is published, an ongoing debate continues…
If you really want to see this process in action, and understand why some of the points you listed are incorrect or irrelevant, then I suggest looking at the response orchestrated at the Eli Rabett website to the paper published by Gerlich and Tscheuschnerin 2009 titled “”COMMENT ON “FALSIFICATION OF THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GREENHOUSE EFFECTS WITHIN THE FRAME OF PHYSICS”".
I am an engineer, and many of the articles by climatologists are over my head, but I could follow through this response to the GT09 paper quite well. Several of the authors of this paper posted here on Climate Progress within the last several days, so they can be reached for questions.
Here is the link to the draft response:
http://rabett-run-labs.googlegroups.com/ web/ G%26T2.11.pdf?hl=en&gda=JoAP8z8AAADEUdes6psiZfp7tCY5Z2rJeSsAWGd7SgbzN_MZz4nAjJ44BYODPBG_uViJnpPh3QqccyFKn-rNKC-d1pM_IdV0
Here is the website where the scientists have coordinated the assembly of the response:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/ 2009/ 05/ last-call-files-have-been-uploaded-to.html
For fun, just to examine your comment:
2) The models used to predict climate change, employ numerous feedback loops to get the dramatic warming that they project. If none of these feedback loops were included, the projected warming would be much less significant.
Lets look at an excerpt from page 18:
“Gerlich and Tscheuschner conclude that most of the infrared absorption in the
atmosphere is due to water vapor, and that because CO2 only absorbs in a small part of
the total infrared spectrum, raising its partial pressure will have little effect. This claim is
very misleading and especially if one does not have a working knowledge of the infrared
spectrum of both molecules. There is no physical meaning in comparing CO2’s
absorption to the “total infrared spectrum” since the boundaries between infrared and
other areas of the electromagnetic spectrum are arbitrary.
As shown in Fig. 9,22 what is important is that CO2 absorbs very strongly near the peak
emission at Earth-like temperatures, and renders the atmosphere completely opaque
between 14 and 16 microns, and partially absorbing still some distance from those
edges.19 As CO2 builds up in the atmosphere, there will still be significant absorption
away from the line center, in the wings of the absorption area. This is an area of the
spectrum in which water vapor is a weak absorber, and because the atmosphere is so dry
at the colder, higher altitudes where radiative balance is set, CO2 is not swamped by
water vapor’s greenhouse effect.
Of the 33 K greenhouse effect, roughly 50% of the infrared opacity is from water vapor,
25% from clouds, 20% from CO2, and the remaining 5% from other non-condensable
greenhouse gases such as ozone, methane, and nitrous oxide. (10,23) Although this often
leads to popular statements such as “water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas,” a
more complete picture is that those gases which do not precipitate from the atmosphere
under Earth’s current temperature regime (including CO2, ozone, and methane) provide
the supporting framework upon which the condensable substances (water vapor and
clouds) can act as greenhouse gases. If CO2 and the other non-condensable gases were to
be removed from the atmosphere, the colder temperature would then result in a
substantial reduction of water vapor and clouds, and a collapse of the terrestrial
greenhouse effect. On the other hand, as one makes the planet warmer by adding CO2 to
the atmosphere, the saturation pressure for water will increase and result in a substantial
positive feedback to amplify warming. (24)”
Yes Ross, climate scientists have real debates all the time, in the pages of peer reviewed research. Thanks to the internet, we can sometimes get to follow the debate. But I don’t think we are going to be able to control the debate with the talking points you listed. If you really believe that you know something these authors don’t, then why not go to their site, and debate them.
Please come back and report the results when you are finished.
OK, that’s two. Rick Covert and Mike#22, you both seem to have missed the point of Mercurious’ “Rules.” They are his distillation of how AGW Denialists operate. They are not what he himself believes — any more than the men who gave us the laws of cartoon physics believe the real world operates by such laws.
Ross writes: “Do you know what forcing is? Modelers add variables until they get the temperatures they need. So clearly they are going to correctly reproduce the temperatures with forcing, like the aersol forcing I mentioned.”
Ross, readers here can see how uninformed you are.
Forcings are not “variables”. That isn’t even wrong, it is just clueless. Please take the time to learn the subject before wasting everyone’s time with BS. (look up the word forcing on the internet).
Saying that modellers “Modelers add variables until they get the temperatures they need” is paranoid. You don’t trust scientists to do science? Think they are out to fool you? PROVE it. Publish.
Paul,
I don’t see how your quote disproves that climate models would project much less dramatic warming without feedback loops. It seems to be saying exactly that. I didn’t say that the feedback loops were wrong necessarily, I just said that feedback loops are necessary for these models to predict warming as high as they do.
Chris, I was hoping I passed on all four rules. These are all things high school students could do.
Sea level measurements, of the read the gauge kind, predate sophisticated instruments, and still go on today.
Coal mines and oil wells can be physically verified. The volume removed can be estimated.
CO2 increases (and corresponding O2 decreases) can be measured by simple chemistry techniques.
The volume of the earth’s atmosphere can be calculated.
Then, we would prefer to use an IR spectrometer. It would be challenging to show CO2 absorbtion without a diffraction grating, IR source, and detector. But this was done in the 1800s by John Tyndall
Bye Ross –
Those were pretty lame. Clearly you should give it up but it’s hard to stop isn’t it?
Aren’t there any young PhD candidates looking for to carry the standard and
build themselves a dead-end career?
Having read a fair amount of the documentation of NASA GISS’s Model E myself, I call bullshit on you.
You’re describing a statistical model. This simply is not how GCMs work. I’ve pointed you to the documentation and from there you can find the source. Show us where I’m wrong.
Why use logic and observation when you can just make shit up. Case in point:
“The problem with more hot records than cold ones has two dimensions.
More hot days are easy given the longevity of the stations involved. What is harder to explain is why there are cold records being set. Again it is more likely longevity than climate.”
Are we postulating that the physical properties of the mercury in thermometers somehow changes over time? Leaky thermometers would show more cold records than hot. Or are we just making shit up to justify denial of reality.
b.t.w.- The “heat island” b.s. over at WUWT has been thoroughly discredited.
Chris, depending on which viewpoint you take:
The denier viewpoint is that science itself must be made suspect. Create the straw man, smear the whole topic, repeat until everything is a theory, and nothing can be proven. Create conflict, fan the flames, move on to the next fake controversy. Hence your reference to cartoon physics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartoon_physics and you are correct. They are not being honest.
The scientific viewpoint is that science does a really good job explaining and predicting the world we inhabit. Science proves itself, uncountable times every femtosecond. And so the call to prove something that is based in fundamental science will create confusion in the mind of the scientist–they will generally respond helpfully by trying to explain why something is generally accepted to be true, like AGW. Good tactic on the part of the delayer/denier funders–tie up the helpful science people by making them type things on blogs, repeat, repeat.
The third viewpoint is that of the average public. What do they know? Who is right? After all, a gazillion scientists sign petitions saying (in effect) science is a farce (no logical inconsistancy here). A US Senator tells us this.
If AGW is so fundamental, can’t we find a way to explain it that doesn’t start with how an invisible gas, acting invisibly somehwere overhead, is changing how much of an invisible radiation is heading out into deep space, causing as yet mostly not visible change to our planet?
Hence my feeble attempt. Sea level rise is verifiable. Fossil fuel extraction/combustion is verifiable. CO2 absorbtion of IR is verifiable. If explained in that order to the public, with pictures, we can in effect “prove” this basic phenomena to the public, without really using science.
Sort of on the same topic, Sincalir’s video enesmbles are a highly effective approach to responding to the confusion the denier/delayer crowd seek.
Something is melting the damn ice. Glaciers that I walked on as a boy scout 30 years ago in July ‘79 are GONE. Not retreated: gone. This is an experience repeated all over the world and well documented by photos.
We know CO2 and methane gases trap heat. We know we (humans) release these gases by the gigaton. We know the ice is melting. Everything else is simply verification and calibration.
If somebody is so scientifically ignorant to publicly deny the existence of CO2 and other greenhouse gases I suggest they do a home experiment with a burning pan of charcoal, a mister and a small closet. Verification will be quick and conclusive.
wow…whay happened to my comment….and free speach
[JR: Most likely you violated the Terms of Service and/or my long stated policy of not reprinting long-debunked disinformation. There are very few unmoderated major blogs on this subject -- and the ones that are quickly get overrun by the deniers. One thing about the blogosphere -- anybody can start their own blog and do all the speechifying they want for free.]
The amount of time a station has been in one place determines the record.
Stations put into use later will not show the same records as older stations. Nothing magic here. If a particular station comes on line after any weather cycle the records for that station will only reflect that one location and the longevity of the station.
Can’t prove it? A simple look around by a perceptive eye should convince your “denier”. First there are a great deal fewer trees than in the 1800’s thus reducing the CO2 oxygen exchange. Next the amount of oil and coal burned in the last 100 years. Trillions of barrels (40 gallons to a bbl)of oil and gigatons of coal. Simple chemistry tells us that burning takes oxygen and converts it to CO2 thus removing oxygen from the air and replacing it with CO2. So less trees converting CO2 to oxygen and more oxygen being converted to CO2.
The 3 major components that cause the greenhouse effect are water vapor, Carbon Dioxide and methane. Water vapor is easy to feel (and see in some places). Humid days are usually warmer than non-humid days, they hold more heat. CO2 works in a similar way.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to look at the numbers, the facts and the surrounding environment to see that things are changing rapidly (in the overall scheme). Not seeing the the change is what is unbelievable. Only someone that has been listening to uninformed, capitalistic, selfish commentators that know nothing about the issue are the ones continuing the (non)debate.