As a result of "climategate" and the denier's pronouncement that AGW has been "proven" to be a massive hoax, I've been posing a challenge of sorts to deniers: "Explain to me specifically where QM fails; where thermo is wrong; where fluid dynamics, spectroscopy, atmospheric physics and chemistry got it wrong."
I have yet to receive a reasonable response, and the above link (obviously) is no different.
Does anyone have a good response?
2009-12-01T21:44:29Z
David, When you see some on Y!A claiming that AGW is a hoax, a fraud, that CO2 doesn't cause *any* warming, they are disputing the foundations of the theory, and our modern understanding of physics.
If you want to argue that climate sensitivity has not been effectively quantified, that's fine. But you must understand that climate models are not the only line of evidence pointing towards a climate sensitivity of 3℃ or so.
In any case, it's clear that your understanding of climate models is limited (they certainly do take feedbacks and "other mechanisms" into account), so I suggest you do some more research. You might consider buying this book: http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Three-dimensional-Modeling-Washington-Parkinson/dp/1891389351 I found it incredibly helpful. It does require some understanding of upper division physics, along with a strong understanding of calc and DEs at least, but it is a valuable resource.
Trevor2009-12-01T21:11:25Z
Favorite Answer
Bob,
As far as most skeptics are concerned QM is either a Quarter Master or Quatermass, Thermo is a short for Thermoman - guardian of the universe, fluid dynamics is something to do with beer, spectroscopy is what a doctor has round his neck, atmospheric physics is a school lesson when you're stoned, physics is what you do in a phys ed class and chemistry is the stuff sold in a chemist shop. Beyond that most of them don't have a clue (as is clearly born out by the level of responses on here).
I couldn't begin to estimate the number of times that the skeptics have been pushed on this issue, it must run into the dozens and to date it's drawn a complete blank.
You'll have noticed that the majority of skeptics on here shy away from anything remotely technical or scientific. For example, the last question I answered was someone asking why the mass of CO2 produced when burning fuel was greater than the mass of the fuel. The question wasn't about who was right or wrong in the GW debate. Answering it does require some simple math and chemistry and on that basis I would bet there are very few, if any, skeptics that answers the question other than the stock 'it's a hoax' type answer.
The skeptics don't 'do' science and therein lies the crux of the problem - they're arguing against something they don't understand. What's the point in doing that.
I do wish they'd raise the standard of their arguments a bit then we could have a more intellectual discussion of the subject.
A couple of years back there was a genuinely intelligent skeptic on here who did understand the science (3DM), he provided some thought provoking questions that necessitated going away and doing some research. It was both fun and enlightening engaging in exchanges with him. I miss those days.
There will eventually come a response from someone who has no idea what these terms mean. This person will promote the idea that, since the emails were illegally hacked, we've been able to read what some scientists are saying to each other, and he/she thinks one guy is hiding his report from someone else, playing cat/mouse with the data. "How un-scientific".
This person will promote the politics of the right wing. Arguments about the correctness of any scientific findings on AGW will prove the agenda of the Conservatives.
Well for starters you have it all wrong. We do not have to prove anything. You are the one that says that this is sound science and that the debate is over. You prove it! You claim that based on your "sound science" that these positive feedbacks exists. Prove it. I asked a question on proof that the water vapour feedback exists, and the best answer was there is non because it is hard to measure. Where is your proof that clouds acts as a positive feedback and not a negative one? But without these feedbacks the warming we shall get will be a minor one instead of a major one.
As far as I am concerned, people who say that the debate is over, that the science is settled and we should blindly rush into co2 reduction programs, these people are scam artists.
It won't let me e-mail you, so I'll put it here. If you're interested in textbooks I recommend 'Climate Systems Modeling' by Trenberth. It's old now (nearly 20yrs!), but it certainly helped me grasp a few concepts!
I'll have a look for the Washington & Parkinson book in my library :)
What, you're not convinced by "read the news you douchebag"?
As you've undoubtedly noticed, it's not about science to the deniers, it's all about politics and conspiracy theories. Atmospheric CO2 keeps increasing, the planet keeps warming, ice keeps melting, sea level keeps rising, but Jones used the word "trick" in an email so none of that matters!
You're not going to get a reasonable response from unreasonable people. Especially since to be blunt, deniers are almost universally illiterate when it comes to basic climate science. And as Trevor points out, I doubt many of them could even deduce that QM refers to quantum mechanics or thermo to thermodynamics.
It's like asking a bible thumper to give a reasonable argument against evolution. It ain't gonna happen, but they'll sure have a fun time calling you a heretic who's going to burn in hell!