Do AGW doubters even understand the basic science of the greenhouse effect?

Question

Far too often we see people saying things like "CO2 can't cause warming because it lags behind temperature".

First of all, while atmospheric CO2 did not initiate warming in the past, it did amplify the warming. Otherwise the global temperature and CO2 plots would not match so closely:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg

Secondly, of course CO2 can cause warming. It's a greenhouse gas! If not for greenhouse gases like CO2, our planet would be - to quote Dr. Evil - "frickin' freezing, Mr. Bigglesworth."

How can anyone form a conclusion about an issue as complex as global warming when they can't even understand the very basic science like the greenhouse effect?

Several of the answers here are good examples of the lack of basic understanding I'm talking about.

Another problem seems to be lack of basic math skills, as illustrated by Jello here:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071116112401AArGExE&r=w#RsR4WTC1UGLXAOZlOfd26Pr22G__DAD6hVJeJW5TpX.ayPFJ4ZHX

Ron C - you need to get over the surface temperature record.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AnxRBU2RzMydTSiCK08JtVDty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071011093412AA2WCIL

Answer 1

I think more than anything it's a case of they don't WANT to understand, they seem to wish to continue with their beleif that humans are not contributing to GW and as such any evidence to the contrary should be ignored or dismissed.

I sometimes demonstrate to people the role of greenhouse gases in retaining heat (it's a simple enough experiment to do in any lab). Skeptics amongst the groups frequently claim that the thermometers are fixed, the gas isn't CO2, or CH4 or whatever it happens to be or that there's some other heat source. When I suggest they provide their own instruments they have a tendency of slinking off into a corner somewhere.

Th role of greenhouse gases is so crystal clear that to claim they're not contributing to global warming can mean one of only four things...

1) We're not actually producing greenhouse gases
2) There is some hitherto unknown compensatory factor
3) The person making the claims doesn't understand the science
4) The person making the claims does understand the science but refuses to acknowledge it

- - - - - - - - -

I don't have an issue with people who state they know little or nothing about global warming and don't understand the concept of greenhouse gases. After all, the notion that the global temperature could be affected by something that is invisible, odourless, colourless and exists in such small quantities, does seem far fetched.

Interesting that so far none of the skeptics have ever been able to provide any counter explanation - not just the skeptics on here but the skeptics anywhere. Even the 'professional' skeptics steer well clear of this issue and when questioned about it tend to give an answer more like that of a politician than a scientist.

A CHALLENGE FOR THE SKEPTICS
Find anything, anywhere, by anyone that in any way, shape or form shows that greenhouse gases do not cause warming.

- - - - - - - - - -

EDIT TO RON C:

We don't see eye to eye on the subject of global warming, but I value and respect your comments as you take time to conduct research and present an intelligent, informed argument.

CO2 does indeed have a logarithmic effect and if you refer to some of my recent answers this is precisely what I've said, but I've also pointed out that it's not quite so clear cut due to the non exclusivity of CO2 in relation to global warming and the many other exacerbating factors involved.

The curve is far from flattening out, we'd need to increase atmospheric concentrations of CO2 by approx 20 times over for that to happen. The atmopshere can be simulated in a lab environment and experiments run to measure the heat retaining capacity dependent upon different atmopsheric compositions and specific gas concentrations.

I appreciate what you're saying about the surface stations and many of them are poorly sited. However, whilst the temperature record may be skewed this isn't what's used in determining the level of global warming. For this it's the anomaly from the long term base period mean. So, even if the surface station is sited on a roof top, in the middle of a field, on a mountain top, it makes little difference. Indeed, when the data from the well sited stations is compared to that of the poorly sited stations it's virtually identical. Imagine this, you have a faulty thermomenter which is always X number of degrees out, whilst it won't accurately tell you what the temperature is, it will accurately tell you by how much it's gone up or down. And of course, the US surface station record is only one component of a larger record which in itself is just one of several records.

The paper from Stephen Shwartz is an interesting one, I haven't had chance to read it yet but have skimmed through it. He's sort of saying what we already know, although at first glance it would appear there are some omissions (maybe not once I read it in more detail). Interstingly he's quoted from sources that I've worked on, I love it when people do that as there's no better way to see if someone is distorting things to suit their own ends.

Answer 2

I think the real problem is not a miss-understanding of science, but a miss-trust of scientific doomsayers.

All of my life, and I assume well before that, there has always been some ecological disaster du jour. The first I followed closely was the land-fill crisis in the 80s. At the time "experts" were all over the media, saying that the entire world would be covered in garbage in less than twenty years. Of course, there was, and is, a landfill shortage problem, but it's not -that- bad. A lot of people saw these doomsayers, realized the ridiculous exageration, and then dismissed the whole issue as exageration.

I see the same thing happening with global warming. "Experts" publicly announcing that melting ice caps will flood the entire Earth next year, and other physical impossibilities. To an average person, it's impossible to separate the realistic dire predictions from the insane ones, so they all get lumped together and tossed because of the lunatic panic-fringe.

Answer 3

Well you answered your own question. How can anyone form a conclusion about an issue as complex as global warming? I've asked that myself. The scientist who believe it is AGW don't know for sure, they say it is most likely caused by man!!! Just like global cooling. They use models which can't even account for cloud cover due to how complex that part of the system is. So if you can't accurately model cloud cover then how can you model future forecast of global warming. The thing is that it is not fact yet that man is causing it, but yet you rule out everybody else's possible explanation. You can safely say that 50% of the warming over the past century is due to the sun... So if the sun is causing 50% of the warming is it not safe to say that it's making the oceans release more CO2 than can be accounted for. So if the CO2 in the atmosphere is higher now than it has been in the past 650,000 years ( thanks Dana for correcting me) why are the temperatures not higher than during the medievil warming period or does it just take longer for it to get that way. There's just a few things like that, that don't make sense to me. Everyone who post on here understands the Greenhouse effect or at least the basic points, so why do you have to bad mouth them, and basically call them stupid just b/c they don't believe what you believe. The Pro AGWers are like Salem Witch Trial judges ( if she floats then she's a witch, but if she deosn't then she's not).. That's just dirty!!!

Answer 4

Dana, yes we understand it. Everyone agrees that more CO2 would have a tendency for a warmer atmosphere. The disagreement is over how much of an impact it will have.

Are you aware that atmospheric CO2 has a logarithmic effect? That means every new molecule of CO2 in the air will cause less warming than the last molecule. Everyone agrees on that. The disagreement is on how close the logarithmic curve is to flattening out or whether it has already flattened out.

Much of the warming reported in the global averaged temp record is not real but an artifact of poorly sited weather stations. Some of them are on parking lots! Surely you can see how this will cause a warm bias in the temp record.
http://surfacestations.org

Because of the problems in the temp record, Roger Pielke proposed using ocean heat content as a better metric for measuring global warming. Stephen Schwartz of Brookhaven National Lab calculated climate sensitivity (the amount of warming created when CO2 is doubled) using a combination of surface temp record and ocean heat content to get a more accurate estimate. His peer reviewed paper shows that climate sensitivity is much less than previously thought and AGW will not be catastrophic.
http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

----
Note to Trevor - You are arguing against a straw man. No informed skeptic says what you claim he says. Try dealing with the facts and peer-reviewed papers I present instead of your favorite straw men.

EDIT
Trevor, you write:
"The curve is far from flattening out, we'd need to increase atmospheric concentrations of CO2 by approx 20 times over for that to happen. The atmopshere can be simulated in a lab environment and experiments run to measure the heat retaining capacity dependent upon different atmopsheric compositions and specific gas concentrations."

But you do not provide any links to papers. I would like to see the papers for myself. William Gray has said "Global warming is a theory by people who do not understand how the atmosphere works." I would like to read the papers you allude and see what Dr. Gray has to say about them.

You do not seem to fully understand the problem with the surface stations. You see a warm bias but not the warming bias. All of these warm biases (and yes they are a big deal, sometimes several degrees) did not happen at the same time. There are minor changes over time so that nothing really looks strange in the data, but it adds up over time creating a step wise warming bias that shows up in the anomaly. Also, your conclusion about this does not make a difference is contrary to the evidence. McIntyre did a temp reconstruction on US stations and found a big difference. Pielke did a study of stations outside the US and found the warming biases there to be even greater than in the US.

Get back to me after you have taken the time to read Schwartz's paper.

EDIT
Dr. Blob, please read the peer-reviewed papers I have cited here before saying I use non-sensical arguments and do not provide any sources.

Answer 5

When did the concept of gas that does magic become science? Anyone could do a little math and see the atmosphere has very little effect on the global temperature let alone the tiny bit of CO2 that happens to be there. Use the laws of thermodynamics and you see the atmosphere is ~.001 the ocean as a power player in climate details. And the ocean is less than 1% the influence of the whole Earth. Also the Earth and sun are about equal in influence reguarding these matters. Do the math.

Answer 6

So how does CO2 affect convection? Hot air still rises, and unless you're claiming that the "greenhouse" effect doesn't allow warm air to rise anymore, there's nothing keeping the atmosphere from increasing convection as temperature goes up.

Overall, doubling CO2 from pre-industrial numbers (280 to 560 ppmv) doesn't raise the atmospheric retention of heat by more than 1.5 degrees C. To get ANOTHER 1.5 degrees C, you have to DOUBLE it again! (560 - 1120 ppmv)

The arguments are mostly over whether the feedbacks to such a MINISCULE temperature rise (at _+/- .6 degrees C uncertainty of what the real MST is, you have to admit that 1.5 is miniscule) are mostly positive or mostly negative, or whether these "virtual" feedbacks cancel out.

Looking at the data for the last 10 years, I'm currently not convinced that the .7 degree C rise seen in the last 100 years actually produced anything more than hysteria.

Answer 7

juicy_wishun - You make some excellent points, but it's not "impossible to separate the realistic dire predictions from the insane ones". Ignore the individual scientists, on either side. Look to the large groups, which weed out the extremists and the oddballs. Listen to the (much maligned) consensus. This tells the tale:

"The drafting of reports by the world’s pre-eminent group of climate scientists is an odd process. For many months scientists contributing to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tussle over the evidence. Nothing gets published unless it achieves consensus. This means that the panel’s reports are extremely conservative – even timid. It also means that they are as trustworthy as a scientific document can be."

George Monbiot

Proof of the consensus (don't complain about wikipedia, tell me what in this completely factual article is not factual):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

"The fact that the community overwhelmingly supports the consensus is evidenced by picking up any copy of Journal of Climate or similar, any scientific program at the meetings, or simply going to talk to scientists. I challenge you, if you think there is some un-reported division, show me the hundreds of abstracts that support your view - you won't be able to. You can argue whether the consensus is correct, or what it really implies, but you can't credibly argue it doesn't exist."

NASA's Gavin Schmidt

Answer 8

To Trevors list I would add:

5) schizophrenic disconnect with reality
6) deliberate attempt to mislead (they're liars)

I don't use these terms lightly.

How else could you explain:

The repeated nonsensical arguments, the premise of which have been refuted over and over.

The repeated exclamatory statements with no basis in fact, and no source to verify being provided.

Edit:
Sure Ron, I'll read the papers. I'm still reviewing some others you posted previously. My comments weren't directed at you. I've credited you before as Trevor does here. I'd like to state for myself, and I hope for you, that when a better argument arrives I'll abandon my position and move forward. It's just not happening. The bit about it being suppressed, no money going to the doubters, is just too much for me to swallow. When the smoking gun for the non-anthropogenic cause is found it will be big news.

Answer 9

"Dr. Evil"? "Mr. Bigglesworth"? Are these characters proof that global warming exist? Do they understand the science that like Dr. William Grey does?

Why do believers liberally use a site like "Wikipedia" where anyone can post their opinion?

Why do believers when confronted with a competing idea, just dismiss good science just because it doesn't fit in with what they believe is real? Why do they 'swift boat' and muzzle good scientist who don't agree with their premise?

How much hotter would it be if co2 concentrations doubled? Show you work. Can't do it. We know. Believers can only use their theory to explain past events. You cannot predict what the climate will be in the future, as you don't have the knowledge, the understanding of how the climate works.

Answer 10

i know what grren house effect is but tell why mars is getting extremely hotter as well???? there no "gas guzzling muscle cars " as a state rep put it (newhampshire i moved away)

or suv's over there plus even if it is cuased by man what can the average man do except pay his now expensive taxes?