why do people keep saying that global warming science is simple physics?

This is a very interesting question. However, you need to identify who is saying this. People who have a little clue about science and try to practice it would never say that it is simple, simply because nobody would pay grants for something that is simple and obvious. These people usually inflate importance and complexity of their proposals. Then there are people with public careers at stake, with general funding that depends on public opinion. Even if they would be alerted by experts that the climate problem involves physical problems that have no known solution within respective scientific disciplines (like the turbulence), they would insist that “climate is not weather”, and must be very simple. Then there are “groupies”, usually under-educated dropouts from precise sciences, who have no real clue about what they are talking about, and cannot comprehend the underlying complexity of the subject.

For example, they would say that it is obvious that more trace gases in the atmosphere means more “heating”. They lie, lie by omission.

First, they omit (or maybe never knew) that even the basic greenhouse effect is not that simple. It needs a lapse rate (higher=colder) to occur, but only if the “effective emission height’ (where the radiation escapes into open space) lies within that negative temperature gradient. This may be not true when you add a gas that has huge holes and high spikes in its absorption spectrum. Since the atmosphere is more complex and has a temperature plateau (called “tropopause”) and a stratosphere where the temperature INCREASES with height, different parts of spectrum cause opposite effects on overall magnitude of so-called “radiative forcing”. AGW scientists claim that they correctly calculated contribution of all 30,000 individual lines of CO2, with proper broadening of Lorenzian in accord with corresponding pressure and temperatures along the 70,000 meters of air path, with accounting for scattering and other known effects. Would you call it simple? Can you simply reproduce their integration? Sorry no, you just have to believe these one or two sources who claimed that.

BTW, what is the “lapse rate”? Have anyone seen one, except as a bunch of anecdotically curved soundings that resemble the desired straight line only under heavy imagination or influence?

Second, even after their best efforts, the plain “simple” greenhouse effect from CO2 doubling appears to be quite short of explaining the (allegedly) observed temperature variations. To salvage the idea, the AGW proponents had to grasp at additional straw and incorporate extremely one-sided view on effects of water vapor. They elect to consider only a hypothetical “positive” vapor amplification feedback to meet the ends of AGW theory with practice. The AGW groupies would either omit this, or blatantly say that they never said that other feedbacks (say, clouds) are simple. While they admit “uncertainties” from these effects, they failed to realize their own trap: if these effects are so uncertain and therefore can swing the primary alleged effect of 2xCO2 forcing in either direction, then what is so simple in the final answer to the magnitude of “global warming” they are so concerned with? Remember, we are not talking about hypothetical 0.0x effect of 2xCO2 (I can make a case that the rate of growth of telegraph poles is very sensitive to Moon light), but about global disasters and possible life extermination due to horrific increase in global temperature. They are either lying again, or simply stupid. I suspect the combination of both. It is all very sad.

No. There's actually an estimate as to when it will be too late. Once the earth's CO2 levels reach a certain amount, the damage will be irreversible and our society will slowly deteriorate due to the effects of global warming. That's why we're so eager to help stop the problem.

Because it is.

"We're adding carbon to the system when we burn fossil fuels, which then throws of the natural carbon cycle and accumulates in the atmosphere. As CO2 is a greenhouse gas, this increasing concentration increases the greenhouse effect, causing the planet to warm."

What about this is not true?

The basics of greenhouse climate theory were founded on CO2 and this hasn't changed in 150 years. No one has yet been able to refute it or provide an alternate mechanism.

You know what else is simple? How could it possibly be of no consequence to release millions of years of stored carbon in the space of hundreds of years? You have no answer for this.

But you guys like to add endless complicating rationalizations about how adding extra carbon won't really matter because of -

[insert denialist theory du jour].

edit:

Loss of albedo, methane from melting permafrost, methane from methane clathrates are not going to be positive feedbacks? The loss of albedo is happening now and that alone may be enough to drive dangerous warming. Humans are not going to keep increasing our emissions of CO2, methane and nitrous oxide, at an increasing rate? I think that’s wishful thinking.

No one is saying that the details are not complicated, that they are not even completely understood.

I don’t have the background in hard science like some other posters here. But I have an engineering background so I’m required in my profession, and as a matter of personal choice, to understand the science and to be able to discern good information from bunk.

I’d have to say that the type of information posted by Dana, Gncp, Trevor and others is completely absent from the denial side. What we get from you guys is fringe. If it was not fringe it would be published in hard science peer reviewed journals.

The only answer we get as to why this is not happening - is that it’s a conspiracy. Which really, considering that science is one of the few relatively uncorrupted institutions we have, is not even worth responding to.

And in a world where only a few degrees C is the difference between global glaciation and global hothouse, and as I’ve said over and over we are releasing carbon millions of times faster than it was sequestered, you still have no answer as to why this should be inconsequential, when clearly everything we know about paleo-climatology says it will be.

As in all fields there are different levels, but that does not make the simple models useless for understanding.

For example in chemistry, you first learn about orbital theory and Lewis theory. Then if you get more advanced, you are told that is not quite correct and learn about molecular orbital theory and s,p,d,f..orbitals. Then you get more advanced and learn that is not correct and that you really need to solve a many bodied Schrodinger equation to find out what happens in molecules and atoms. Of course that can not be solved exactly. All these models have their place.

I think when it comes to the greenhouse effect, it would not serve any purpose to discuss non-radiative transitions with the general public, or even those who took physics 101. A completely radiative model of the greenhouse effect is incorrect and I have seen many amatuerish attempts to disprove the greenhouse effect using such models. Collisions are an important part of the greenhouse effect and this is typically overlooked. Nonradiative transitions can even be barely mentioned in graduate level spectroscopy classes.

Prediction and pretension can be synonymous. That's why averages and Delta factors exist. If they knew what any given climate system was going to be at any given time. There wouldn't be a need for all those, (what if) scenario models. The IPCC also recognizes the limitations in modeling otherwise they wouldn't have a need to prioritize. At least they did make it sound valid with percentile rankings.

I don't know if you're confused or purposefully being dishonest, but Dawei is right. Look at the question you linked:

"Is it difficult to understand that burning coal and oil produce CO2? Do you doubt that CO2 produces warming?"

As my answer stated, that is the simple physics of the greenhouse effect. I never said that quantifying feedbacks was simple. In fact, I've always said that cloud feedbacks are one of the largest uncertainties in climate models, just as Spencer said. Go through my answers and you'll see I make this statement regularly whenever people ask a question like "is the science settled?".

The science is settled regarding the causes of global warming. That's simple physics, which even Spencer doesn't really dispute. When you're talking about effects and feedbacks related to global warming and climate change, that's where it gets complicated. There are 2 separate issues:

1) What's causing global warming. That is relatively simple physics which extremely few climate scientists dispute (not even Lindzen, Christy, or Spencer as far as I can tell [although he's a slippery devil who doesn't make his opinions very clear]).

2) How will the global climate change in the future. That is much more complex and where the real debate lies.

I really don't appreciate you misrepresenting my statements, by the way. You seem to be making a habit of misrepresenting people:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AvAoz...

This kind of thing is what makes people think deniers are dishonest. And I have no doubt that instead of apologizing, you'll just ignore the fact that you misrepresented me and give best answer to a fellow denier, because frankly, you're in denial and will never allow yourself to admit that you're wrong.

It is simple physics, and Jan Veizer is correct that it isn't all about CO2 and it is absolutely about the earth's energy balance. Carbon dioxide is just one of many details that make up the problem.

The entire problem is based on more energy entering the earth's atmosphere than there is leaving, and that in a nutshell is global warming. So, if we only look at the problem as more energy in than more out, then the problem is simple. With more energy in the earth's systems we will see the earth’s climate systems respond and we on the surface can measure some of that excess energy as heat.

When we begin talking about the forcings, properties of greenhouse gases, and absorption of photon energy that all come together and cause the energy imbalance, understanding of the problem becomes a bit more complicated for many.

In short, the problem is simple, but devil is in the details.

I think people who say this are mostly talking about the greenhouse effect, not all of the complications with clouds and feedbacks and such. The basics behind greenhouse gasses and the knowledge that they absorb and re-emit infrared radiation has been known for over 100 years.

Of course trying to predict into the future is not simple, that's why we have extraordinarily complex climate models to help. It's also impossible to predict precisely what will happen to someone who smokes a pack a day, but even a first grader can at least tell you that their risk for cancer will be increased.

But even still, if you try to get into the nitty gritty details of the greenhouse effect it is not very simple. It takes some pretty advanced physics knowledge to explain *how* IR gets absorbed and re-emitted. That's why a lot of teachers cop out and say "it's like your car on a hot day". Which of course is flat out wrong, but most people don't care enough to learn the advanced physics anyway. Not to say that the IR absorption cannot be very precisely measured, just that the theory behind it is a bit hard to explain.

There is no definable test to ascertain this data: unless you quantify it via carbon emission elimination or curbing for a period of time to analyze the increasing temp. effects and as to whether they ultimately halt as a result.

To sum it up, lets cruise towards finding solutions to eliminating carbon emitting vehicles and coal generation that is a massive contributor.

GW is a scam for the Left to make money ,are U stupid enough to buy that.Measure the green house gas ,sorry but there is just a trace . The plants recycle CO2 and there is a very small increase because plants do there job.Public opinion does not mean it is true.