Is my faith in AGW science misguided?

You are proceeding from a false assumption. I said "But what rational person would think that?" He said "What makes you think people are rational?" After 50 some odd years I've come to the conclusion that most people are mostly not rational. Most are driven by emotions and uncontrollable irrational wants and desires. The truly logical and rational are the few. Presenting logical, rational arguments alone has not solved this, is not solving this, will not solve this. Surely, as a scientist, you must prove exactly with measurements and mathematics to be credible. But simply explaining your results over and over again in the same way as though somehow it will eventually be understood is a failure on your part to understand the true nature of the problem. I believe the institution of science, by refusing to engage in emotional political discussion, because it fears a conflict of interest, the appearance of bias and the loss of objectivity, has failed the lay population. I can't argue the science because I lack credibility. You won't argue emotion because you fear the lack of objectivity. No matter how hard I study I will never have the raw intellectual horsepower to become a research scientist. But you can step down a notch and advocate. Is there something about the process of becoming a research scientist, something about the personality of a person who becomes a research scientist that distances one from ordinary life? Is there something about the personality of a generalist that prevents them from understanding the life of a career scientist? Is there some way to bridge the gulf? I've been advocating for rational science based public policy for my entire career. But it never really works. Only horsetrading seems to get anything done. What we are doing as a society is not working. Things are getting worse, not better. It's time to try something different. I believe the faith I had in science (scientists) to solve policy problems may be misguided. Perhaps your faith in the institutional tenets of absolute objectivity and non-involvement is misguided. Not you personally, but you as proxy.

"I believe that the laws of physics apply to the earth system and that the laws of physics predict that the earth will warm when greenhouse gasses are added to the atmosphere."

How much will the Earth warm when greenhouse gasses are added? Is there a formula or is it a guess? How do you know what greenhouse gasses are added, where they come from and which ones are absorbed from the atmosphere? How is this related to the ocean/atmosphere carbon dioxide exchange? Is there a formula or suite of formulas?

When you can explain to me how the laws of physics apply to those situations, then maybe we can help you with your problem here.

By the way, do climate models have enough resolution to properly represent the physics of cloud formation and climate interaction? If not, then what use are they for climate predictions?

If you are looking for a contradiction to the laws of physics to prove that your AGW theory is incorrect then you have fully closed your mind and will never change it since you are asking the impossible. I can't say that's a noble stance, it's more like irrational posturing.

Edit: And after all of that, I can still accept AGW theory and reject that the consequences would be more negative than the solutions proposed to mitigate the problem. But regardless, temperatures and sea levels need to begin accelerating for climate models to meet their low resolution predictions. We're not going to hit +2C by 2050 or 1M sea level rise unless the trend lines start a parabolic trajectory.

In the end, there are so many problems with the AGW theory that you really might want to consider that your application of the laws of physics might be faulty.

Faith and belief may not be the right terms when it comes to physics.

So let me just say that I, too, have confidence that the laws of physics apply to the Earth system (as well as to the laws of biology!). I'm just a little wary of HOW they're being applied.

If you're going from a celestial mechanics problem dealing with the Moon's motion and its (and the Sun's) effect on the difference between the Earth's shape and that of the oceans, to modeling the entire atmosphere, oceans, and land, years into the future, I'm afraid you've lost my confidence.

There is so horribly much about the Earth's climate and the myriad things that materially affect it, that I have pretty near zero confidence in the ability of all the climate scientists and all the computing power on Earth to model Earth's climate over the next decade.

When deciding how much confidence to put in the laws of physics, you will want to do a little investigation into the known limits in the application of those laws.

Let's take perhaps the most deterministically-friendly problem in all of physics -- celestial mechanics. You can buy computer software that will tell you the locations of all the major Solar System objects, thousands of years into the future and the past. But all the top astronomers in the world cannot tell you where Pluto will be in 30 Myr. The laws governing this are linear (neglecting general relativity, which is not! -- but even the Newtonian laws are subject to chaos over time). And this is a snap of the fingers on the timescale of the life of the Solar System.

When the underlying mathematics behind the physics is nonlinear, things get ugly much faster. In more than half a century, some of the smartest minds in physics have yet to produce a workable contained fusion device. The governing physics here is in the equations of MHD -- magnetohydrodynamics -- which is the marriage of the laws of fluid mechanics (which are themselves nonlinear) with the laws of electrodynamics. Of course, the time development of Earth's atmosphere and oceans is governed by the same laws of fluid mechanics that constitute part of MHD, coupled with the physics of state changes in water.

There is, in any real physical system, a limit, a time horizon, beyond which chaos takes hold. (It's kind of ironic, in fact, that one of the pioneers of this realization was meteorologist Ed Lorenz.) The opportunities for this in meteorology are manifold; those in climatology are largely different, but also numerous.

A quick litany of other factors that work against climate predictability:

• clouds and precipitation uncertainty

• the sheer magnitude of heat storage in the world's oceans, whose total heat capacity dwarfs that of the entire atmosphere, and a small error in the movements of which can change the entire character of the climate

• unpredictability of large volcanic eruptions, which can block a significant fraction of incoming sunlight for months or even years

Any takers in coming up with a working controlled fusion reactor? DEMO, which is set to be the first commercially viable such machine, is scheduled to begin construction in 13 years. And, of course, this far back, there are no guarantees.

Additional Details

=============

Your picture of the "earth system" is somewhat naive. Yes, if you can measure both incoming and outgoing power quite accurately, you could nail down the heat content of the whole earth. There are a couple of fundamental problems with this approach, however.

Firstly, the "heat content of the whole earth" includes parts of the planet that are utterly inaccessible to us (core & mantle), as well as parts that are not included in what we perceive as the "global climate" (but both of these parts can still exchange heat with the "global climate"), and which can thereby cause changes in global climate, seemingly from out of nowhere -- the deep oceans, e.g., into which heat can disappear, and from which it can re-emerge, for long periods of time.

Secondly, you will run into the "integration drift" problem. When working from a time-rate of a physical quantity (power = d[energy]/dt), and integrating it to get that quantity as a function of time, any small systematic error in the measured time-rate will grow into a large error in the integral, and that error growth will be linear with time. Once again this acts to impose a time horizon on the validity of your projection.

You BELIEVE that the laws of physic predict that the earth will warm when greenhouse gases are added to the atmosphere? There is in fact a certain amount of truth in this statement of belief because you have restricted you universe of factors to the laws of physics.

You have not considered for example the laws of biology and in particular the Carbon Cycle which when it is operating properly unimpeded by pollutants and other factors such as acid rain, will keep carbon dioxide in balance. Increase in carbon dioxide stimulates plant growth, which in turn increases the uptake of carbon dioxide. There are other greenhouse gases to be sure the greenhouse gases that cannot be utilized by the natural ecosystems will accumulate, but carbon dioxide the greenhouse gas of main concern will be recycled and become plant material with greater speed as carbon dioxide increases.

As for the ocean rising and the polar icecaps melting is very much like a ice cubes melting in a beaker, as long as the ice floats free the water level does not change. Increase in the temperature of the ocean expands the water, so the water gets bigger but there is not more of it. Indeed as far as the continents themselves are concerned and other land masses, some are sinking and some are rising. Remember also E =mc2 ? This is the physics behind nuclear reactors. Nuclear reactors create "new heat" by destroying matter. This new heat is used to turn generators to produce electric power. About one third of the energy contained in the new heat is converted to electric power. The rest of the new heat is transferred to cooling water and dumped into a river, large lake or the ocean, thereby raising the temperature of the river, lake, or ocean.

OK. I’ll have a go at this.

I don’t think your faith in the laws of Physics is misplaced at all... we share the same confidence in them.

There are only a few aspects of Physics that are needed to understand the Greenhouse effect... that CO2 and other greenhouse gasses in the Atmosphere warm it by absorbing IR radiated from the Earth’s surface. These aspects of Physics are so thoroughly known, enumerated, testable, provable and replicable that they are completely beyond doubt in the terrestrial realm (ie within worldly bounds of temperature, velocity, and massiveness).

If you put CO2 in the atmosphere you will warm it. Of that there is no doubt whatsoever.

If you change the temperature of the atmosphere you will change the climate (wind patterns, precipitation patterns, temperature patterns, surface insolation patterns). Of that there is no doubt whatsoever.

So, I think that this far we are in complete accord.

But your question isn’t about Physics is it? Your question is “Is my faith in AGW science misguided?” and here we differ quite distinctly.

Where we differ is not in the fundamental science at all, but in the reported CONSEQUENCES of Anthropogenic emissions.

Let me give you an example. Linlyons is fond of quoting Glacier Park as an example of the consequences of AGW. Like this http://www.livescience.com/674-glaciers-disappear-...

I’m not having a go at Linlyons here, just using him as an example of how we look at the same evidence and reach completely different conclusions.

Linlyons sees the disappearing glaciers as a direct consequence of Anthropogenic emissions, whereas I look at the photo’s of receding glaciers and wonder “how much” of that is attributable to anthropogenic emissions.

I know that in some part it IS due to AGW, but I also know that it’s not ALL due to AGW. I also know that these Glaciers have displayed similar retreat in geologically recent, but pre-AGW times.

What I don’t know is “how much” GHG emissions have changed the climate... and I don’t know at all if this “how much” is inconsequential or dire.

So whilst the Dookie labels me an ‘anti-science liar denier’ (and I AM having a go at him) , he’s really missing the point. I‘m not denying the science at all, I’m saying that reports telling me that AGW has dire consequences for humankind are inadequate and unconvincing... and in that respect I am skeptical.

The tides will enter Chesapeake Bay regardless of whether ‘AGW science’ is 100% correct, or 100% incorrect. The movement of the tides is determined by the Laws of Physics, not those of ‘AGW science’. If you are relying on AGW science to move all that water then, indeed, I do think that your faith in AGW science is misguided. :)

The laws of physics cannot be broken in this universe!

Given that cloud behaviour plays an important role in climate models, and given that even the IPCC states that our understanding of clouds is low, why do you have such confidence in the laws of physics that clouds will amplify any initial warming caused by co2? What do you know that the IPCC does not?

Why do you in turn make the unscientific assumption that when temperatures rise, the catastrophic changes in climate are a given? The laws of physics were wrong when they predicted hurricanes will become more common. The catastrophe also comes when wet areas become wetter and dry areas drier. If dry areas become wetter, that is not a catastrophe but a plus. To do this climate models have to predict precipitation changes at a local level. Are you saying that your laws of physics can do this? if they can please contact the climate modelers. All of them are finding it extremely hard to predict precipitation changes at a local level.

Edit: Your edited answer shows where you are misguided. The change in temperatures with a doubling of co2, all else being equal, is only one degree. The higher temperatures come from a separate theory that states that positive feedbacks will amplify this warming many times over. You are also misguided into assuming that the catastrophic changes in climate that the increase in temperatures will cause is a given. To answer your question, you are misguided.

I don't think there are to many scientists that don't get the greenhouse affect and the natural processes and by increasing CO2 will make the troposphere more reactive to this process http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrUqR0LO7k8&NR=1 It's not about absorption it's about friction (Excitement) And CO2 has 3 sharp points compared to H2O your microwave oven works in the 2.4 GHZ range to excite the water molecule to create heat http://www.animations.physics.unsw.edu.au/jw/EMspe...

yes

If your belief that AGW science is as predictable as the tides then I'm sorry, your faith is misguided. If you require a miracle to sway your belief, then yes your faith is misguided.