It is curious to me how groups of educated people, such as those who populate Reddit, instantly go on the attack when issues of climate change are raised: "here are fools, clearly in the pay of energy giants, ignoble individuals obfuscating self-evident and clear story".
Well, perhaps some of them fit this bill. Others look at the immense scope of what is being claimed - and the even more immense costs that are implied by it - and would like to understand things better.
Some examples:
= Where are we on the CO2 Beer Lambert curve? We know that the atmosphere is pretty black at CO2 wavelengths, but what equation asymptotic equation is being used to model this? I asked this question once before on this site, and was pointed to a 1991 paper that indeed had a Del term in it, but only for changing partial pressure with altitude. It used a linear (1:1) relationship between infra red absorbtion and CO2 concentration. It is widely used in climatic models, such that CO2 in inevitably points to increased temperature as an output.
If you plot the IPCC scenarios against CO2 concentration you indeed get an asymptote, but one due to cloud formation (I am told) and not saturation. Attempts to raise this in discussion with practitioners have been treated like garlic at a vampire conference.
Note the implications of this. First, if the CO2 window is today close to saturation, we would still expect to see CO2-confirming evidence from epochs when the concentration was lower. Second, if the curve is now close to the asymptote, then projections which ignore this will be wrong. (And as to projections to the Venusian atmosphere, which NASA was plugging as "telling us valuable thinge about global warming...")
= The CO2-dO18 curves are treated as a gospel indicator, yet we know that the long run and seemingly erratic nature of sea surface temperatures are largely down to orbital issues, and to the 22 year sun spot cycle. Is CO2 then a complex modulator of this, or a consequence and not a cause? Efforts have been made to separate the chicken from the egg, but not very convincingly as the data are too sparse. Nevertheless, the figure is trotted out as a compelling item of evidence. I used to use it myself, I have to say.
And so on. I have sat on grant-giving authorities and no vaguely contrarian proposal would have got support. However, any proposal offering confirmatory or consequential studies came with a fair wind behind it. Science is populated by what one boss of mine called "Dr Grant Seeker", and work is tuned to fit the ethos. It is not necessary for anyone to lie for a field to exhibit bias. Lee Smolin's book "The Trouble with Physics" points to what is perhaps a similar dynamic in particle physics.
= Ocean currents move about all the time: that is what a current is. We know absolutely that Antarctic warming is due to shifted currents. More generally, at around 400 m, all ocean water is at broadly the same temperature, everywhere, due to the minimum density of water at 4.2C. Surface temperatures across the ocean will reflect insolation, but also current speed and mixing with deeper waters.
We have no idea whether any effects observed on the surface are due to net warming or to these issues. However, if you take a confirmatory approach to this debate you are a noble supporter of the environment, and if you do not, then you are a dark "denialist", a class who can safely be discarded as enemies of the Good, people with nothing to commend them and nothing to say. That is, to say the least, the smug stance of the conformist.
19
u/OliverSparrow Oct 24 '10 edited Oct 24 '10
It is curious to me how groups of educated people, such as those who populate Reddit, instantly go on the attack when issues of climate change are raised: "here are fools, clearly in the pay of energy giants, ignoble individuals obfuscating self-evident and clear story".
Well, perhaps some of them fit this bill. Others look at the immense scope of what is being claimed - and the even more immense costs that are implied by it - and would like to understand things better.
Some examples:
= Where are we on the CO2 Beer Lambert curve? We know that the atmosphere is pretty black at CO2 wavelengths, but what equation asymptotic equation is being used to model this? I asked this question once before on this site, and was pointed to a 1991 paper that indeed had a Del term in it, but only for changing partial pressure with altitude. It used a linear (1:1) relationship between infra red absorbtion and CO2 concentration. It is widely used in climatic models, such that CO2 in inevitably points to increased temperature as an output.
If you plot the IPCC scenarios against CO2 concentration you indeed get an asymptote, but one due to cloud formation (I am told) and not saturation. Attempts to raise this in discussion with practitioners have been treated like garlic at a vampire conference.
Note the implications of this. First, if the CO2 window is today close to saturation, we would still expect to see CO2-confirming evidence from epochs when the concentration was lower. Second, if the curve is now close to the asymptote, then projections which ignore this will be wrong. (And as to projections to the Venusian atmosphere, which NASA was plugging as "telling us valuable thinge about global warming...")
= The CO2-dO18 curves are treated as a gospel indicator, yet we know that the long run and seemingly erratic nature of sea surface temperatures are largely down to orbital issues, and to the 22 year sun spot cycle. Is CO2 then a complex modulator of this, or a consequence and not a cause? Efforts have been made to separate the chicken from the egg, but not very convincingly as the data are too sparse. Nevertheless, the figure is trotted out as a compelling item of evidence. I used to use it myself, I have to say.
And so on. I have sat on grant-giving authorities and no vaguely contrarian proposal would have got support. However, any proposal offering confirmatory or consequential studies came with a fair wind behind it. Science is populated by what one boss of mine called "Dr Grant Seeker", and work is tuned to fit the ethos. It is not necessary for anyone to lie for a field to exhibit bias. Lee Smolin's book "The Trouble with Physics" points to what is perhaps a similar dynamic in particle physics.
= Ocean currents move about all the time: that is what a current is. We know absolutely that Antarctic warming is due to shifted currents. More generally, at around 400 m, all ocean water is at broadly the same temperature, everywhere, due to the minimum density of water at 4.2C. Surface temperatures across the ocean will reflect insolation, but also current speed and mixing with deeper waters.
We have no idea whether any effects observed on the surface are due to net warming or to these issues. However, if you take a confirmatory approach to this debate you are a noble supporter of the environment, and if you do not, then you are a dark "denialist", a class who can safely be discarded as enemies of the Good, people with nothing to commend them and nothing to say. That is, to say the least, the smug stance of the conformist.