Off the fence on global warming |
2007-07-28 |
A year or two ago I decided to become a global warming agnostic, because I realized I wasn't able to separate the facts from what I wanted to believe, which was and still is that the science isn't in so don't worry. Since then I've tried to have no strong opinions myself, but instead listen to what people on both sides have to say, note what makes sense, and what doesn't. It's amazing how easier it is to think clearly when you have no ideological commitments to consider. Like listening to music without ear plugs.
I've decided it's time to come down off the fence now.
Are we humans the cause of global warming? Before I try to answer that, let's get a few distractions out of the way. They occupy the attention of some otherwise very bright people, but are not relevant to the question of man-made global warming.
It's irrelevant that some environmentalists, celebrities and other people who believe that we're warming the planet are hypocrites, evil, or in some way behave short of the carbon-neutral ideal. For instance, when scientists travel by plane to a climate science conference, that does not mean that they don't believe their own theories. When celebrities with private jet planes take part in climate awareness events, that does not make the message they're supporting wrong. I wish I didn't have to say this, because it should be obvious, but to a lot of people there's no difference between flaws in a theory, and flaws in the people who believe in it.
It is irrelevant that you think capitalism is evil, that you see a beauty and a harmony in nature that is superior to anything humans can create, and that you think technology takes us away from who we are. It is just irrelevant that you think capitalism is good, that you see beauty and harmony in an unregulated economy, and that you think technology gives us the freedom to be ourselves. And it is irrelevant that some people who disagree with you believe some of these things. It has nothing to do with climate science.
It is irrelevant that many people who talk about global warming misunderstand it, or distort it, or lie about it. It is irrelevant that many people who believe it is a problem, or that it isn't, do this for entirely the wrong reasons.
There's only one thing that matters, and that is the science of global warming. Not the people who debate it, not your beliefs or esthetics, just the science. That science has a life seperate from the public sphere. Imagine a wall: on one side you have real scientists doing real science, on the other you have amateurs, pundits, activists and politicians. Ignore that side. That's where you go to make things happen, but not to learn how things are.
Back on the side of science, we have to think carefully about what it is we're after, so we don't trick ourselves. The global warming debate has inspired a lot of amateur skepticism. People who normally believe firmly in the authority of science, now find themselves propelled by ideology to experiment with skepticism. Being new to it, they clumsily stumble over the ancient question "can we really know anything for certain at all?" Of course we can't. The closer you look at any advanced field of science, the more holes and uncertainties you find. You'll find dissenters, technical shortcomings, all kinds of excuses that, selectively applied, lets you reject theories you don't like, and believe in the ones you do like.
You can't use skepticism selectively, you have to be consistent, apply the same criteria to ideas you like as to ideas you don't like. There are three ways to do this. One is to not be skeptical at all, and believe unquestioningly in Science. If scientists say it, it is true, and if sometimes they contradict each other you just listen to whoever shouts loudest, or has the whitest labcoat or whatever. That's actually a good strategy. It's better than being a selective skeptic, (or believing unquestioningly in a religious authority). It's a cheap, low-risk bet, with a moderate payoff.
Another way is to dedicate your life to becoming an expert on some particular issue, so that you can think entirely for yourself. This is a bet with low risks and a very high payoff, but is so expensive that you can only do it for a couple of issues. Typically you do it only with your work.
Then there are those of us who want to form an intelligent opinion, but don't have the time or ability to become an expert. We know that scientists often get things wrong, but we also know that we have to take many things on trust. To do this well we need to be cost-efficient skeptics, who rely more on rules of thumb and general principles than on in-depth understanding. We learn the basics, but only to test the waters, we don't have time to go swimming.
It's from this point of view that I'm considering climate science. Not as someone who thoroughly understands it, but as someone who knows a few things about what a real science ought to be like, and can compare climatology to that standard.
I've concluded that climate scientists - not the activists and celebrities, not governments and organizations, but the scientists - have built a good theory, one that acknowledges the complexity of the subject. I don't think they're any better or worse than scientists in any other field, which means there's bound to be disagreement and corruption and mistakes and petty behavior. I wouldn't be surprised if they've missed something important. But yeah, it's real science, it's smart people "doing one's damnedest with one's mind, no holds barred". That probably applies to many skeptics as well, but the fact that they're a minority tells me something, it tells me that as a layman my best bet is on the majority.
Again, I'm not saying that I understand climate theory, I'm not qualified to. I'm saying that A) it is a real science, and B) that there is a majority view. Therefore we laypeople should accept it. If climate science is a pseudo-science dictated by politicians and activists, or if there is significant disagreement within the field, we shouldn't. But from what I can see that's not the case. Some argue that climatology can't be real science, because the only experiments it does are in computer models. I don't agree with that. Done carefully, science may also be the study of a non-resettable, uncontrolled complex system in real time. Far more difficult, yes, but still science. Or, by any other label, still valuable.
I didn't fully make up my mind on global warming until I saw the Channel 4 skeptical documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, and followed the debate about it. Watching it gave me a hope that my old skeptic view might be right after all, (I really want to believe this). That hope was quickly snuffed out. The contrast between the two sides made me embarassed on behalf of the skeptics. Compare the slick style and clever editing of Martin Durkin's documentary with this dull and pedantic rebuttal from Chris Merchant at Edinburg University. It illustrates everything I hate about polemical documentaries, and everything I love about science. Cautious, boring, smart, glorious science.
At one point in the documentary, Durkin shows a clip from An Inconvenient Truth where Al Gore displays the correlation between CO2 and temperature over several hundred thousand years. What Gore doesn't tell you is that temperature actually begins to rise before CO2 levels do. Durkin uses this to prove that CO2 doesn't cause the temperature to rise. But nobody claims that there is a simple relationship here, there is a feedback loop involved. Higher temperatures causes more CO2 to be released, which causes higher temperatures. If you look at the theory, you see there's no problem here. That theory may incorrect, but Durkin isn't saying that, he merely misrepresents it, not unlike a creationist saying that evolution is purely random so it can't be a creative force.
Durkin claims that solar activity is a better explanation for global warming than CO2. In the graph he shows there seems to be a correlation, but only because his dataset ends around 1980. Durkin also points out that humans contribute only a small portion of the world's carbon emissions, which is true, but our contribution is cumulative, disrupting an existing balance. Again, misrepresentation, not scientific counterarguments. Why would he do these things? Listen to his explanation, judge for yourself. Data distortion, cherry-picked evidence, and, oh, quotes out of context. Is this beginning to sound familiar?
I actually first saw An Inconvenient Truth after writing most of this post, and I didn't particularly like it. Too emotional, too little science. I want technical details. I don't want to have something fascinating like a CO2-temperature feedback loop covered up with an "it's actually very complicated", as Al Gore does, I want to hear the juicy details. The details that go over my head still give me an idea of the nature of what I don't understand, the approach scientists use and the level of uncertainty involved. This allows me to apply those rules of thumb and general principles I mentioned. I described some of these principles earlier in a post about conspiracy-like worldviews, and now that I've had time to watch climate skeptics from an agnostic point of view for a while, I detect some of the warning smells I wrote about then. When something like The Great Global Warming Swindle manages to fall so flat on its face, and is still held up as a definitive refutation of climatology throughout the climate-skeptical punditsphere, that's a very bad smell.
For an example of good smells, the kind I'm looking for, listen to this technical and unemotional lecture series on climate change by Richard Wolfson at Middlebury College. Or read the Real Climate blog. Compare this with this. Maybe there are better cases to be made for the skeptic point of view, (let me know!), but to me the whole field looks pretty pathetic, with a purely ideological appeal. I share that appeal, I instinctively distrust environmentalists, but it just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
So if global warming is man-made, and we can expect the warming to continue, where does that take us? It doesn't automatically follow that we have to do anything. Figuring out that we're warming the earth is a lot easier than predicting what effect this will have on the overall climate. And even if we conclude that global warming will cause damage, that doesn't mean the price of stopping it is worth paying. There might be other, more important problems we should focus on today. Unpredictable technological advances over the next century might do more to solve the problem than any government intervention.
This is where I go from having a strong opinion to a weak one. I'm not sure what we should do about global warming. On that question, I remain an agnostic. We should do something, but I don't know what. I want to hear your ideas, I'm not ready to form my own. But in looking for the answer, there are a few things I think we should keep in mind.
First, there is no safety net. I touched a bit on this when I wrote about black swans. The story we've created about ourselves and our place on this planet - as its highest achievement and natural rulers - is a comfortable lie. The idea of major catastrophes or hardships caused by climate change seems strange and remote only because we, in the mere heartbeat of Earth's history we can remember, haven't experienced any. But there is no justice in the universe. You screw up, then you die.
At the same time, the idea of a planetary doomsday also seems in a way comfortable and familiar to us, precisely because it's a good story. The climate predictions that are most likely to reach you, the news consumer, after having passed through filter after filter after filter, are the predictions that make the best stories. Usually horror ones. Take that as another reason not to listen to non-scientists. Reality ignores all our stories, and plays by its own rules. That's why we need science.
Third, even though we shouldn't trust specific climate projections too much, particularly the ones that make it through the media filters, it seems reasonable to me to be very concerned. When you mess with a system you don't understand, one that involves enormous forces and intertwines with the basis of life for every single one of us, the resulting change is probably for the worse. Maybe not catastrophically worse, but enough so that unpredictable climate change is not something you want to happen. You want things to stay the same, because you're very small and the earth is very big and what you already have is something you've learned to live with. It's not just that the phase space of possible climates is vastly bigger than that of comfortable ones. Even change within the comfort zone requires costly adaptation, can cause loss of life, political instability, etc. Climate change is inherently undesirable.
It also seems to me that, while it is impossible to predict the climate of 2050, you can still establish a relationship between, say, higher temperatures and stronger hurricanes, or other weather extremities, and use that to say something about what we may expect. All predictions are not equally speculative.
At a minimum, we should embrace any cheap optimizations we can find. If there is a way for us individually, or society as a whole, to reduce carbon emissions at little cost or annoyance, we should take it. One such cheap optimization might be nuclear power. We have it, it works, and it's both safer than its reputation, and cleaner than the current alternatives. Another might be to simply not waste electricity in your home. Or use more energy efficient technologies. While it may be somewhat expensive to invent or invest in those technologies, that efficiency might soon pay for itself. Cheap optimizations like these are no-brainers, and I'm sure there must be many of them.
Expensive measures, for instance ones that reduce emissions at the cost of less fuel efficiency, or that require massive regulation, are harder to justify, (by which I mean precisely that, and not that I'm against them.) Any effort spent reducing carbon emissions is effort not spent elsewhere. Is carbon offsets really the worthiest cause for you to spend money on? Does the cost of regulation justify the effect on the climate? We should be careful of the Lollilove factor, the tendency of well-off people to to embrace charitable causes that make them feel good about themselves, but do little good for anyone else. We who live in the world's wealthiest countries live in bubbles of dream reality, where the scale and nature of the world's problems are reflected only by accident. The fact that global warming has penetrated these bubbles does not mean that it is more important than the problems we don't notice.
On the other hand, ranking problems objectively in this way leaves out an important factor: The ability of people to care. If problems #1-7 are too remote or boring to capture our sympathy, and #8 is the greatest tearjerker since Titanic, that doesn't mean we should discourage people from caring about #8 - it might be that or nothing at all. Also, while environmentalism shouldn't be about guilt reduction, feeling good about something you've done for the environment doesn't make it misguided. So, no, I'm not against expensive measures, I just want to thoroughly understand them and their consequences first.
I'll remain undecided on what to do for a while longer, and very much open for sane ideas. But as for global warming, it is happening, it is caused by human activity, it is a serious problem, and we should do something to slow it down.
I think your essay has several major problems. The first is the conflation of global warming, climate change, and anthropogenic global warming. The question is not, "are humans warming the globe?". There two questions, "is the global warming?" and "how much are humans contributing to climate change?". It is, in my view, a mark of the untrustworthiness of the proponents of AGW that this very significant yet dishonest conflation is done. Second, you consider the lauding of The Great Global Warming Swindle as an indictment of the skeptics, but don't consider the lauding of An Inconvient Truth, filled with the sort of distortions, as an indictment of the proponents. Why is that? Third, efficiency turns out to not be a no-brainer. In fact, there is very little that tends to increase utilization of a resource more than making that utilization more efficient. When something is used more efficiently, it becomes effectively cheaper, and therefore more of it is used, usually enough more that overall consumption rises. If you really want to reduce electrical use, make everything horribly inefficient so no one can afford it.
Overall I liked your essay, but I would like to point out some errors in logic. You say…”I'll remain undecided on what to do for a while longer, and very much open for sane ideas. But as for global warming, it is happening, it is caused by human activity, it is a serious problem, and we should do something to slow it down.” Let’s break this down. 1)“It is happening” Agreed. The data seems to indicate we are going through a warming trend. 2)“It is caused by human activity” Hold your horses Bjorn. Humans may be contributing to global warming, but to imply human activity is the sole cause of the current warming is not supported by any data. Sure you can draw correlations between the rise in industrial pollution and global warming; but correlations do not equal cause. 3)“It is a serious problem” Is it? Sure, if temperatures are going to keep rising until the seas boil off, then yes it is a serious problem. But if they only rise a little, it is not a problem at all. For all anybody knows, a slightly warmed up planet may in fact be good for humanity. 4)“we should do something to slow it down” Please be careful here Bjorn. If by “do something,” you mean we should pollute less, then I am right there with you. However, “doing something,” could be worse than doing nothing. I recently heard about a Russian scientist’s plan to cool the planet by pumping tons of sulfur into the atmosphere. Can you imagine! God save us from these people trying to save us! On a personal note: I try to live my life with as little fear as possible. It is a challenge because so many people and institutions try to use fear as a means of promoting their agendas. Global warming and terrorism are the two big issues out there today that people will use to try to gin up fear. My advice is to pay as little attention as possible to folks using these issues as a means of “fearing” you into a position. I suspect (but can’t prove) life will continue in spite of what the fear mongers out there are saying. Pay no attention to the pointy headed guys waiving around their spreadsheets of doom! Best, Franko
Annoying Old Guy: "I think your essay has several major problems. The first is the conflation of global warming, climate change, and anthropogenic global warming. The question is not, "are humans warming the globe?". There two questions, "is the global warming?" and "how much are humans contributing to climate change?"."
I'm conflating these issues somewhat in this post, but climate scientists do not. There is one set of evidence for there being warming, another for the role of humans in it.
"Second, you consider the lauding of The Great Global Warming Swindle as an indictment of the skeptics, but don't consider the lauding of An Inconvient Truth, filled with the sort of distortions, as an indictment of the proponents. Why is that?"
Because TGGWS appears to me representative of the skeptic position. It was applauded by climate-skeptical pundits when it was released, it contains the major anti-GW arguments, and it has interviews with skeptical scientists. If there is a more solid case to be made out there, or if there have been any attacks on TGGWS from climate skeptics, I want to know about it. It's just that this movie brings down so many pundits with it, people who claim to be climate authorities but didn't even spot the CO2-temperature mistake, I'm not sure who's left to take seriously. I'm not saying there aren't any, but I want to know who they might be.
And there's an ocean of difference between An Inconvenient Truth and The Great Global Warming Swindle. Al Gore manipulates and simplifies, Durkin invents. But again, let's not spend more time with these documentaries than we have to. I don't like An Inconvenient Truth, and if you know of a better skeptic case than that in TGGWS, tell me about it, and we'll discuss that instead.
"When something is used more efficiently, it becomes effectively cheaper, and therefore more of it is used, usually enough more that overall consumption rises. If you really want to reduce electrical use, make everything horribly inefficient so no one can afford it."
What, a sort of iron law of energy usage? If your house required less electricity, would you fill it with new appliances just to maintain the same costs? Also, cheap does not mean unthinking. People must voluntarily choose to take global warming seriously, otherwise very little will be achieved. The point is that this will be a lot easier if the message is "fight global warming and reduce your electricity bills", instead of "I have nothing to offer but blood, sweat and tears".
Franko: "2)“It is caused by human activity” Hold your horses Bjorn. Humans may be contributing to global warming, but to imply human activity is the sole cause of the current warming is not supported by any data. Sure you can draw correlations between the rise in industrial pollution and global warming; but correlations do not equal cause."
Not just correlation, but scientific explanations of how increased CO2 levels raises temperature. The correlation by itself is striking, but that is not all there is.
"Is it? Sure, if temperatures are going to keep rising until the seas boil off, then yes it is a serious problem. But if they only rise a little, it is not a problem at all. For all anybody knows, a slightly warmed up planet may in fact be good for humanity."
"For all anybody knows"
- "but if it only rises a little"
- luckily we don't have to go by guesses, we can for instance do research on the effect of ocean temperatures on hurricane strengths. And nobody is saying that the oceans will boil away, where did you hear that? Please, don't mistake media horror stories for real science.
"I recently heard about a Russian scientist’s plan to cool the planet by pumping tons of sulfur into the atmosphere. Can you imagine! God save us from these people trying to save us!"
Yes, that sounds risky. The solution with the least potential for unintended consequences is to reverse what's causing the warming in the first place: human CO2 emissions.
"Pay no attention to the pointy headed guys waiving around their spreadsheets of doom!"
I agree, and that's part of the reason why I've been so reluctant about global warming. I don't like the hysterical tone that environmental activists have learned they need to use in order to be listened to. I think it distorts their message.
Nevertheless, bad things do happen. There is real science behind global warming, and no amount of wishing can make that go away. Noone is telling you to go around in fear. Surely you have a mode inbetween, one where you acknowledge a problem without breaking into tears over it?
I am also undecided on the subject. There is way too much data on both sides of the argument to say that one side is wrong and the other correct. Most likely they are all correct to one degree or another. I have been actively following this subject for some time and created a blog to try and point out the benefits of both arguments and where they both break down. Check it out at http://www.globalwarming-factorfiction.com
Sean: "There is way too much data on both sides of the argument to say that one side is wrong and the other correct. Most likely they are all correct to one degree or another."
That is true, but not necessarily meaningful. For instance, if the best of the skeptical arguments do nothing more than serve as minor corrections on the accepted theory, that is not a good reason to remain undecided. To me, this isn't about closing the issue, fixing a particular theory in stone, and I don't think any climate scientists would want that either. Of course some of their conclusions are inaccurate or wrong. But I don't think that justifies indecision - unless you're one of those I wrote about who have the time and qualification to become an expert.
CBC - Global Warming Doomsday Called Off A very informative documentary about the real cause of global warming. It clearly discuss about the fact that CO2 is not cause of global warming. Take a look also at the Great Global Warming Swindle and Green House Conspiracy in google video. This documentary discusses many topics that are not covered in the Swindle such as the hockey stick graph, from the viewpoint of Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3309910462407994295 http://video.google.com/videogvp/CBCGlobalWarmingDoom.gvp?docid=-3309910462407994295 1.http://en.wikipedia.org/wikiMichael_Mann_%28scientist%29 Michael Mann (scientist) 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy 3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_Baliunas Sallie Baliunas. 4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Soon Willie Soon 5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy Quotes In The Great Global Warming Swindle documentary, Christy is quoted as saying, "I've often heard it said that there's a consensus of thousands of scientists on the global warming issue and that humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system. Well I am one scientist, and there are many that simply think that is not true. 6. Nils-Axel Mörner http://www.forskning.no/Artikler/2007/juni/1181553807.9 Maldivene Som en del av dette arbeidet, og for å studere problemet der det virkelig gjelder, startet jeg et større forskningsprosjekt på Maldivene. Prosjektet startet i 2000, og inkluderer seks feltarbeid, hvorav tre større ekspedisjoner. Ganske raskt ble det klart at havet slett ikke stiger. Snarere tvert i mot, kunne vi til og med vise at havnivået sank rundt 1970. Sporene vi fant i felt var usedvanlig klare, og de nye strendene som har befestet seg etter 1970 viser stabilitet, og ikke tendens til forandring. Områdets tre vannstandsmålere viser heller ingen tegn til noen lineært stigende trend, bare variasjoner rundt det som synes å være en konstant gjennomsnittsverdi. Dermed faller argumentet om at Maldivene holder på å druknes av et stigende hav. http://www.weekendavisen.dk/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060113/IDEER/601120365&template=printpicart Iskerneboringer. Et par med fire børn på Niels Bohr Institutet har tilbragt fem år på Grønlands Indlandsis og hentet iskerner op fra 3000 meter, der fortæller om bratte klimaskift. På bare 23 år steg temperaturen 16-17 grader. Klimaskiftet kom brat - i løbet af ét år. Det ville George W. Bush gerne høre mere om. 7. ph.d. Jørgen Peder Steffensen http://www.nbi.ku.dk/side30976.htm?personid=5801 Lektor Forskning Niels Bohr Institutet KØBENHAVNS UNIVERSITET Stratigrafisk analyse af iskerner fra Grønland og Antarktis. Studier af palaeoklimaet. Datering af iskerner. Kurator for Universitetets samling af iskerner. Hans påstand er også at havnivået vil falle ved global oppvarming, på grunn av kulden i arktis,antaktis og grønland vill falle som snø der til tross for høyere temaratur. Atmosfærens samlede innhold av vanndamp eller skyer med fuktighet vil også øke med stigende temperatur Da debatten om klimaændringer bliver politisk i 1990erne har vi allerede de første iskerneresultater på plads. Min pointe er, at forskningen ikke skal styres ud fra en snæver politisk dagsorden. Tit viser det sig, at grundforskningen er forud for den politiske debat.« http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2007/03/05/493960.html Gunn Kari Hegvik prøver i en meget tendensiøs artikke å diskreditere forskere som har motatt økonomisk støtte fra INTERNASJONALE OLJESELSKAPER.
CBC - Global Warming Doomsday Called Off A very informative documentary about the real cause of global warming. It clearly discuss about the fact that CO2 is not cause of global warming. Take a look also at the Great Global Warming Swindle and Green House Conspiracy in google video. This documentary discusses many topics that are not covered in the Swindle such as the hockey stick graph, from the viewpoint of Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas.
It is a bit scary, your essay mirrors in details my own 'journey' from a 'climate sceptic' to now acknowledging that there is a global warming problem. Nearly every detail were the same, from watching polemic (so-called 'sceptical') documentaries (yeah I did see the 'Swindle' film) to the real scientific story found at the excellent realclimate website.
Ok, so there's a real problem, but what should we do? I still don't lose any sleep over the global warming, partly because I still question its impact on the economy/our habitat and partly because I am unsure about how much we have/can change the climate.
Still, it seems reckless to me not to do anything, given the real 'scientific consensus' on global warming.
A sensible minimum precaution, often advocated by The Economist (also a recent 'climate convert') is a carbon tax. This is a better solution than allowing politicians the feeling (and bragging rights) of 'doing something', by imposing indiscriminate/ineffecient prohibitions and subsidies. By tweaking our tax systems to reflect the cost of carbon emission in a domain-neutral way, the market will respond and show us the most cost efficient solutions.
Thanks for a sober and reflected essay. As for what to do: New realistic alternatives to fossile fuels will demand free, fundamental, long-term research. This, in turn, depends on governmental funding. So that is where I'd spend the money. And, I think, this is where CO2 taxes should be put to use. Regrettably, today's tendency (in Norway, at least) is universities and research institutions becoming increasingly dependent of trade and industry. No doubt, company funded research do also provide valuable contributions to energy issues. Being mostly of the applied kind, however, such research is less likely to bring about really new ideas and technologies. As per today, fission power may seem the obvious alternative. It is not, however, necessarily a cheap one. Long-term waste storage is still an unresolved matter, making the total cost of this technology still unknown. But as you point out: cheap optimizations may be important. Here's a thought: a great amount of the airplane traffic is business travels. Meetings and conferances. My guess is that a lot of this travelling could be replaced by video conferences, utilizing broadband communication technology. This must however imply an immediate payoff for the companies. Probably a big one; old habits die hard.
Hi there!
I'm still on the fence. But if I were to make a decission based ont he quality of arguments on both sides, I would end up on the other side of the fence from you.
There is such incredible amount of propagana for human caused global warming. And it appears that intellectually you are only allowed to support the warming side. And if you don't, you loose reputation, money and support.
And this examplifies why it is wrong when you make an appeal to the majority as you do when you say «... as a layman my best bet is on the majority.»
Appeal to majority is a logical fallacy, and thus it is always wrong. Simply because there is no guarantee that the majority is right. And in this case there are strong political influences that affects not only which sides people end up on, but also to which degree the other sides are getting heard.
As a layman, your only bet is listening to the quality of the arguments. Never make appeals to neither majority or authority. It may feel convenient, but it will always be wrong. The majority is influenced by politics and a lot of other stuff. Tha authority should have better quality arguments anyway, if the authority is real. There is only one thing left, the quality of the arguments.
There is one more thing I wish to comment. You keep repating the mantra of the global warming side that global warming is caused by human polution, and mainly CO2 emissions.
I'm not a scientist either, at least not in this field, but how can we humans cause something that has always been going on without human interaction before? The climate has always been changing. It's been both much warmer and much colder on this globe. So we're not causing this. At most we're changing the rate of change.
This has a very interesting consequence. Global warming will come, whatever we do. At the very best, we can slow down the rate of change. But we cannot stop it.
So more interesting than trying to hinder the inevitable, would be to prepare the world for these changes.
I could go on, but will stop here and just repeat my two points:
1. Appeal to majority is a logical fallacy. Even though your argument is not a logical proof, there is still so much politics going on that this may very well be the reason for where the majority appears to be. Listen to the quality of the arguments.
2. Humans are not causing global warming. And global warming is inevitable. The climate har always changed, and will always change. At best we only affect the rate of change. Fighting the inevitable is a wast of resources. Put these resources to good use elsewhere, and maybe we can lessen the impact of the inevitable global warming.
JB: "Appeal to majority is a logical fallacy, and thus it is always wrong."
No, it is not. Note that I'm talking about the majority of scientists. What anyone else prefer to believe is irrelevant. If the majority of scientists, in a field where real science is done, agree on something, then it's acceptable to appeal to their authority. Or do you only accept scientific theories you understand fully yourself?
"I'm not a scientist either, at least not in this field, but how can we humans cause something that has always been going on without human interaction before? The climate has always been changing. It's been both much warmer and much colder on this globe. So we're not causing this. At most we're changing the rate of change."
It's funny you should ask - this is what climate science is all about. Understanding the interaction between humans and nature, understanding natural climate change, and figuring out how the climate has been in the past. You ask as if your question is a rhetorical one, but it's really the starting question of climate science. One that has been answered in considerable detail. Follow the links in the post, read up on the theories. Climate skepticism doesn't "offend" me, but I do think it's important that skeptics do their best to understand the theories they disagree with. That was the problem with The Great Global Warming Swindle - they attacked something they didn't understand, so why then are their views worth listening to? Please don't do the same mistake.
Adding another logical fallacy, appeal to authority (the scientists) is not making appeal to majority more correct. It's still wrong. And for some reason you ignored the arguments, that there's just as much political influence as science that governs where the majority stands.
Do I only accept theories I fully understand? Of course not. I accept theories when the arguments are good. Remember, in my post I encouraged you to look at the quality of arguments instead of appealing to majority. So the answer to your question was actually already given there.
About your answer to my second point. In a rhetorical manner, you encourage me to read up on the subject. That is not a real answer to my point. You're just avoiding the issue by implying I haven't read enough about it.
And how much I've been reading is not of any interest either. As for scientist, it's the quality of my arguments that are of interest.
I know the majority of the authorities do not stress this point, but can't you see the obvious when pointed out to you, that climate has always changes, and will contiune to always change no matter what we humans do?
One thing I didn't bring up in my first post is the danger of taking the wrong actions. For example actions that will hinder globalization and economical development in poor countries. The argument for such actions will be that economic growth causes higher energy consumption and more stress on the environment.
The negative consequences of such actions can be increased global political instabilites, which is a strain on global economy and can take resources away from cleaner technology necessary for when the developing countries are increasing their standard of living. Another consequence is worsening the ability of these countries to cope with the inevitable changes in climate. Both consequences worsening the impact of the global warming.
JB: "Adding another logical fallacy, appeal to authority (the scientists) is not making appeal to majority more correct."
You have misunderstood the concept of "fallacy". If someone is an expert on a subject, it is not a "logical fallacy" to appeal to their authority. It has nothing to do with logic, it is a bet. A bet that when the majority of experts on a scientific subject agree on something, it is likely that they're correct.
What's left to you, as a person who thinks for yourself, is to evaluate whether climate science is a science or politics or something else. This does require you to learn something about the theories - but not to understand it at such a level that you're qualified to evaluate it by yourself. You say you only believe in theories when you're convinced by arguments. I don't believe you. That is, I believe the arguments that might seem convincing to a non-expert are too superficial to be meaningful. Again, I'm not telling you to trust any self-proclaimed scientist blindly - I'm saying that only experts can evaluate theories in depth. You and I need to go up a meta level, and look at how the scientists are working. Decide if they're doing science or not.
"About your answer to my second point. In a rhetorical manner, you encourage me to read up on the subject. That is not a real answer to my point. You're just avoiding the issue by implying I haven't read enough about it."
The fact that your question was rhetorical indicates that you need to learn more about the theories you disagree with. It's like saying you don't believe in the circulatory system, because "how is it possible for blood to float around like that?" You're interested in fallacies - here's another: I don't understand how this could work, so it can't be true.
I'm not going to write a basic introduction to climate science here - and your question is so broad that a basic introduction is the appropriate answer. Again, follow the links. Once this discussion is over we'll go each our own ways. All I want is that you take with you this recommendation to learn more about the theories you believe are false. If you already know the basics, that's great, I guessed wrong. But if I didn't, it would be a shame not to do anything about it. I'm not trying to score a point here, so I can "win" the debate, just giving advice.
"can't you see the obvious when pointed out to you, that climate has always changes, and will contiune to always change no matter what we humans do?"
Apply this to medicine: The health of a human body changes naturally, and always will. So it doesn't matter how you treat your body, and when you get ill there's nothing you can do about it.
"One thing I didn't bring up in my first post is the danger of taking the wrong actions. "
Absolutely, and you'll recall that I covered this in the essay. But it is irrelevant to the question of whether there is a problem in the first place.
I do understand what a fallacy is, and if you go back to the summary of my first post, you should see that.
There are two cases here: 1. You try to convince people who is right and wrong. Here the fallacy applies 2. You are betting on who's right, but not trying to claim what is right or wrong. Here the fallacy does not directly apply.
However, you are doing a mixture of the two. You are not only trying to say who to bet on, you're using it as argument for a conclusion. So the fallacy applies in part. For the part the fallacy does not directly apply, I've made the argument that political influence is so strong in this case that it may overshadow the influence by scientific facts. Therefore your bet is uniformed and thus bad bet.
You then try to add appeal to authority by saying that you're betting on the major of the scientists. Since the world of science is heavily influenced by politics in this case, and there are good scientists and good science on both sides, this argument fails.
So, I will again argue that you should only listen to the quaility of the arguments. And forget the number of people behind the arguments. If not, my _bet_ is that your oppinion is too much influenced by all the propaganda going on.
«You say you only believe in theories when you're convinced by arguments.»
No I did not say that. It was one example when I believe in theories without knowing all the facts my self. I never said anything about that being the only case.
«I believe the arguments that might seem convincing to a non-expert are too superficial to be meaningful.»
It might be the case now and then, and even quite often. But I don't agree to it as a general rule. Moreover, it's not only the reasonable, but maybe wrong, arguments a non-expert may form an oppinion form. It's also the arguments that are clearly not good enough.
For example take the now infamous CO2/temperature graph used in "An inconveniant truth". When it was shown that temperature raises before the CO2, it also shows that there is clearly something missing in the argument. Something is clearly presented the wrong way. You don't have to be an expert to see this. You only have to be a bit sceptic in the first place.
I'm not going to go into a personal argument about who should read more. I find it only distracts from the real issues.
You're introducing a new fallacy. «I don't understand how this could work, so it can't be true.» It's a very common to think like that, but I'm not sure what kind of conclusions you think that I've come to based on lack of knowledge of what. You didn't specify.
My conclusion is that the claim that climate changes is caused by human activities is either wrong, oversimplified or badly presented. I don't base this conclusion on lack of facts, like you seem to indicate, but on the fact that raise of temperature was going on long before human activities could have any influence.
You have not given any facts that contradicts this. Only implying I should read more, and this is basic stuff that you will not hold lectures on. I am of the oppinion that if things are basic and simple, it's easier to explain them than spending time explaining why you won't explain.
I will refrase the rhetoric question I gave into a clear statement: Global climate changes has always been going on. Both cooling and waming. There was warming before human pollution started affecting the climate. Therefore it is in the worst case wrong, and in the best case oversimplified or misrepresented, to claim that the changes are caused by human activities. I don't conclude that pollution is not driving the climate, but I am concluding that some of what is claimed about climate change clearly is not correct.
Backing up this is the fact that the models behind the claims have too many free variables to give conclusive answers. And compleks models with many free variabled can often be tweeked to show quite different results. Some variables, such as solar activity, has been given very little weight although there are scientific evidence that this may have heavy impact on the climate.
My main problem with your blogg post was, and still is, that you continue to appeal to majority. Even though the majority is clearly influenced by politics. You appeal to authority, even though there are good authorities on both sides. As I said, quality of arguments is the only thing we non-experts really have to go by.
My main problem with the debate at large is the huge amount of politics involved, suppression of voices with different oppinions, statements that clearly are not true, conclusions that are not sufficiently backep up, models with too many free variables, evidence that are not considered they way it should and that the consequences of making the wrong decissions based on bad conclusions can in the worst case make everything much vorse.
My stand on the scientific part of the issue is that hard conclusions are premature. My stand on the political issue is that there appears to have been sort of a political coup by proponents of one scientific doctrine, and that the political environment at the moment is in opposition to a scientific environemnt where theres room for more than one view. In short, the consensus are more political than scientifical.
JB: "For the part the fallacy does not directly apply, I've made the argument that political influence is so strong in this case that it may overshadow the influence by scientific facts."
It may, yes. That's a danger for any scientific issue with controversial political consequences. And to check if that is really the case, you have to look at the science these people produce. It's not enough to point out the political pressure, you have to point out the results as well. From what I can see, that is not the case.
"So, I will again argue that you should only listen to the quaility of the arguments. And forget the number of people behind the arguments."
And on what basis will you evaluate these arguments? Will you evalute a discussion of historical temperature change with your understanding of the various proxies that are used? Do you understand how the measuring equipment works? Do you know where to measure, and what to do with the data afterwards? Do you know which uncertainties are involved? Do you know how to evaluate two different results against each other?
Maybe you do. I don't. And then there are carbon cycles, hurricane dynamics, ocean currents, and so much much more. That's why I look at this from the meta level, learning enough to see how the scientists work, what kind of theories they're building, on what level they're thinking. I can't do any better than that, I don't have time to be an expert. I only have the time to paint a broad map of the field, which is this: When you strip the global warming theory off all the hystericism and arrogance of politicians and activists, you're left with a solid core of real science. When you strip global warming skepticism of the same, you're left with minor corrections to the mainstream theory, corrections that mostly appeal to non-scientists.
"For example take the now infamous CO2/temperature graph used in "An inconveniant truth". When it was shown that temperature raises before the CO2, it also shows that there is clearly something missing in the argument."
Yes, in Al Gore's argument. He is not a scientist. Ignore him. Or are you saying that when Al Gore simplifies a complex relationship, that proves that the theory he's simplifying is wrong?
"You're introducing a new fallacy. «I don't understand how this could work, so it can't be true.» It's a very common to think like that, but I'm not sure what kind of conclusions you think that I've come to based on lack of knowledge of what."
You asked "how can we humans cause something that has always been going on without human interaction before?" If you're curious about the answer, (which is very fascinating), please follow the links. If you intended it as an argument that global warming isn't real, the fallacy applies. Up to you.
"My main problem with your blogg post was, and still is, that you continue to appeal to majority. Even though the majority is clearly influenced by politics."
I wrote quite a lot about this. I wrote that if climate science is political, then we shouldn't trust it. And then I presented a long argument about why I believe this is not the case. So your problem with my post is not that I appeal to a majority of scientists, but that, in your view, I appeal to a majority of pseudo-scientists. The argument is about science vs pseudo-science, not whether it's okay to appeal to majority, because that depends entirely on whether it is science.
>> A bet that when the majority of experts on a scientific subject agree on something, it is likely that they're correct.
Bjorn, if, as you claim, the only thing making you get off the fence in favor of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is the majority of experts that agree on it, then you should get off the other side of the fence. It has now been shown that Oreskes & Science magazine's original 2001 claim of "consensus" was fraudulent. They knew that the data didn't support their claims, but they made them anyway. What's more, judging from papers written since 2004, only 7% explicitly endorse AGW, and fewer than half implicity/explicitly endorse AGW. The trend is away from AGW. The number of scientists coming out against AGW "idea" is very large:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm
However, I believe the real reason is not the science (since you have not explored it at all), or the number of experts. I know a little about how you think. I believe that the stridency of the arguments made is what made you get off the fence in AGW's favor. You instinctively recoil from any argument made in too strident a manner. You even alluded to this in your post. This is following a complete logic fallacy, since there is nothing to stop false ideas from being expressed quietly, and true ideas from being expressed forcefully.
As such, I don't think it would matter to you that the reality is that there is NO coherent AGW hypothesis. By this, I mean, there is no substantive scientific explanation for how 1) Man could dramatically increase C02 levels or 2) how more C02 could raise temperatures on earth. The known laws of Physics says it's impossible. I can give you more details, if you were interested.
The AGW proponents/science deniers have constructed a myth, born of human conceit:
pre-industrial C02 was low C02 accumulates in the atmosphere Man alone emits C02 Man can determine the global C02 level by measuring it in one spot Man can determine the global thermodynamic state by measuring air temps in cities C02 heats atmosphere Atmosphere heats ocean
All of the above are incorrect. In reality:
pre-industrial C02 varied widely, reaching 420 ppm in 1940 C02 is always in flux, and stays in the atmosphere for only about 5 years The global C02 level is unknown, and Man's impact on it is even more unknown Sun heats/cools oceans Sun controls Water Cycle Sun heats/cools atmosphere Oceans have a big effect on atmosphere Water Cycle has a big effect on atmosphere
>>And on what basis will you evaluate these arguments?
Logic, reason, consistency and whatever knowledge you have. Also you do not have to make an absolute decision. If you don't have enough information or knowledge, you should not come to a conclusion either. When it comes to the science part, I haven't.
>>When you strip the global warming theory off all the hystericism and arrogance of politicians and activists, you're left with a solid core of real science. When you strip global warming skepticism of the same, you're left with minor corrections to the mainstream theory, corrections that mostly appeal to non-scientists.
What you do here is using your judgement to reach a conclusion. That's much better than appealing to majority.
Another matter is that I don't agree with you. There are serious scientists with serious alternative theories. There are also serious holes in the models and theories employed in reaching the CO2-conclusion. Several factors, maybe most prominently factors regardin solar activity, has not been taken properly into consideration.
>>You asked "how can we humans cause something that has always been going on without human interaction before?" If you're curious about the answer, (which is very fascinating), please follow the links. If you intended it as an argument that global warming isn't real, the fallacy applies. Up to you.
I intended it as an argument for showing that the argument for the CO2-global-warming-theory is inconsistent with some obvious facts. This does not falsify the theory. It just indicates that what we're being told is not the whole truth.
And of course I have been reading on the subject. I have not seen the answer to that very simple question. You claim it's an easy one, yet you refuse to share your knowledge. Not even point to the correct link. I think it's very suspicious behaviour, and even a bit arrogant. It looks to me like you're trying to hide your own lack of knowledge on the subject.
>>I wrote quite a lot about this. I wrote that if climate science is political, then we shouldn't trust it. And then I presented a long argument about why I believe this is not the case. So your problem with my post is not that I appeal to a majority of scientists, but that, in your view, I appeal to a majority of pseudo-scientists. The argument is about science vs pseudo-science, not whether it's okay to appeal to majority, because that depends entirely on whether it is science.
That climate science is not political is a claim that is so strange it's hardly not worth arguing against. Hey, it's a IN issue. How is that not political? There are money grants. How is that not political? There are several factions on the field with different oppinions. How is that not political? There are petions and law suits. How is that not political? There are serious political debates with scientists on both sides. How is that not political?
How you can reach the conclusion that the number of scientists, the majority you appeal to, is not political, that is way beyond me.
Well, the you say "the science" is not political. But you didn't appeal to the science, you appealed to the scientists. And what kind of science that is done, and is proposed in the media, that is still political.
Then we come down to the scintific facts and arguments presented. And as I've sais all along, that is all you have to go by. Evaluate what is presented on this. Does it make sense? If not, then don't jump to any conclusions either. Stay on the fence, at least when it comes to the scientific facts.
When will you Norwegians stop selling your oil? If we really are in the terrible fix you allege you should quit pumping it out of the ground. God knows you don't need the money. If you quit taking it out the world wide price would rise and people would start using less of it. Never has the greed of such a small group of people been so overwhelming that they'd sell the future of the world for a few pieces of silver. Shame!
Hi Dave.
Let me ask you a couple of questions: Have you considered the global consequences of pushing the price for oil higher?
What will be the effects on political stability? How will it affekt poverty and the economic growth of developing countries?
One of the reasons I am so sceptical about the global warming hysteria going on, is that I am afraid it can lead to actions that will have very negative consequences for the economic growth of the developing countries.
And if it is true that the globe is getting warmer, poverty will greatly increase the negative consequences. Poverty leads to over population and the decreases the ability to adapt to changes in the environment. Also it leads to political unstability, which again drains resources from more important fields, and creating a negative spiral.
It may well be true that Norway can get along great with less oil production. But I don't agree that increased oil prices is necessary good, until I get a good explanaition. And Norway decreasing oil production will mean that Norway will invest less in the global economy, including a lot of american companies.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't care about CO2 emissions. What I am saying is that hysteria and the resulting simple sollutions is something we should be careful about. We need to look at the whole pictures and the consequences before we just push for "higher oil prices".
Nevertheless, bad things do happen. There is real science behind global warming, and no amount of wishing can make that go away. Noone is telling you to go around in fear. Surely you have a mode inbetween, one where you acknowledge a problem without breaking into tears over it?
>> There is real science behind global warming Actually, no, there isn't.
There is real science behind the alternatives too. Both sides are based on real science. If you think that only goes for one side you're seriously misslead.
There's a mode bewtween hysteria and denial too. This is not about acknowledging a problem or not, this is about a lot of problems. The biggest problem, in my oppinion, is overpopulation.
The reason is simple: Overpopulation demands more resources. If the rest of world shall be able to increase their life standard, it will take a lot of resorces. This demands a good economy, political stability and scientific research for cleaner technologies.
High population and poverty makes the consequences of global warming much much worse. And global warming will come, no matter what we do. Because the climate has always been changing, and always will.
Unless you want to keep the developing world down. With increased political instabilty and terrorism as a result.
Also poverty leads to increased population, while richer countries have a decrease in population. Poverty is thus a negative spiral that should be avoided.
There are problems that need to be acknowledged. The CO2-hysteria is not helping. Many of the suggestions to fight CO2 will be directly harmful since it will hurt the global economic growth and fight against poverty.
Stop being a fanatic, and start looking at the broader picture.
Gunnar, there is real science on both sides. But real science is not a guarantee for true answers. And when it comes to global climate, there are to many unknown factors and simplifications in the models to draw any final conclusions.
As with all scientific fields where the teories are not developed, there will be a lot of factions fighting for the theory they believe in.
And even if the majority believes in one theory, this does not guarentee truth either. All correct theories have begun with just a few people supporting it.
In my opinion, what we have seen lately is a political coup by the "human cased global warming theory". They have managed to convince key persons in the UN and in the media, in order to create the idea that there exists a global consensus among all 'serious' scientists.
This is of courde propaganda. And even though Bjørn Stærk and others have bought this propaganda, in doesn't make it the truth. A majority never makes a truth. Never!
If believing in the theory was costless, then there would be no problem. But as pointed out above, buying into the hysteria can have serious negative consecuences. Especially when it comes to the fight against poverty and overpopulation. Therefore I think it's important to not jump to simple conclusions and simple sollutions. We may make things worse, not better.
>> Both sides are based on real science. If you think that only goes for one side you're seriously misslead.
I'm an electrical engineer, which means "applied scientist". I'm not mislead by anyone. I can apply the known scientific laws of science. I could list for you about a dozen logical prerequisites that would have be true before we get to "AGW is real science", and I could show you that they are all false.
Gunnar, please go ahead!
Just stating that you know is no better than when Bjørn Stærk earlier, as an answer to a critical question, is just saying that the answer is easy but he will not tell me what it is. ("I will not hold lectures, read the links etc.") It will not convince anyone that is not already convinced.
And please keep in mind that there is a difference between the stand that anthropogenic global warming is _based on_ real science, and that the conclusions themselves are scientific.
For this is the real problem. The conclusions that are presented as 'true', is not based on enough facts. There are to many holes that are ignored. The problem is not that it is not based on science. The problem is that the conclusions are premature.
JB: And even though Bjørn Stærk and others have bought this propaganda, in doesn't make it the truth.
Interestingly enough, it was the propaganda - climate hysteria and radical environmentalism - that kept me from accepting this for as long as I did. It was the science that finally convinced me.
Just stating that you know is no better than when Bjørn Stærk earlier, as an answer to a critical question, is just saying that the answer is easy but he will not tell me what it is.
We're thinking on two different levels. You're still looking to be convinced by scientific arguments that the global warming theory is correct. As I wrote in my essay, that is the wrong approach, unless you have the time and ability to become an expert. So no, I'm not going to try to "explain" global warming theory to you - I'm not able to. I'm not an authority in any way. I know enough to understand why for instance the Great Global Warming Swindle is wrong - ie., I know that it misrepresents the ideas it criticizes, but that's the limit of my abilities.
That's why I want you to follow the links, instead of wasting time listening to me. Not to be convinced that the theory is correct, but only that it is science. I understand this may be an unfamiliar and unconvincing approach for you. Very well. I'll settle for you understanding what my approach is, how it differes from yours, and why "convince me that global warming is true!" doesn't make sense with that approach.
>> Gunnar, please go ahead!
Ok, I will, but I'm very busy right now. I'll just give you one for right now:
1) AGW is fundamentally based on the idea that there is a radiative balance. In reality, there is no such scientific law. The actual known scientific law is Energy Conservation, known as the first law of thermodynamics:
I'm going to get into more details at www.critical-thinker.org, when I get the site up, which should be shortly.
Bjørn, I know the propaganda made you hesitant to reach a conclusion. Bt unfortuantely you have finally arrived at one, with some arguments that are OK (you've evaluated both sides arguments and found which side that seems more believable) and some arguments that I've criticised. Especially the appeal to majority.
However, I don't think you should put so much emphasis on The Swindle as you do. I have never seen that movie myself (I tend to avoid what I perceive as propaganda), but I read about the subject almost daily. And I see a lot of good arguments that supports my point: There is not enough evidence to draw any hard conclusions yet. The science isn't mature enough. There are too many open questions. The model has too many tweakable variables.
I have a problem with believing that anyone paying attention to the debate can reach a conlusion. That's why I find it easier to believe that even though the propaganda made you hesitate in the beginning, it won you over in the end.
Gunnar, you have a big task in front of you. I wish you luck with your project, and I hope I get to read what you have to say soon.
JB: However, I don't think you should put so much emphasis on The Swindle as you do.
Maybe, but it's a question of finding credible skeptics. The Swindle takes down a large number of pundits with it. In my view, anyone who watched that documentary and uncritically recommends it shows that they don't even know the basics of the theory they're "skeptical" about. Now, I'm not saying the pundits being wrong makes GW theory right. It's not much better on the other side. But when you ignore the hysterical non-scientists who believe in climate theory, you're left with a large field of genuine science to take seriously. When, on the other hand, you ignore the skeptical pundits who liked The Swindle, what's left?
Like I wrote in the essay, I may be wrong about this, (I even asked people to recommend credible skeptics - again, please do), but all I can see of genuine science on the skeptical side consist of either speculative alternatives or minor corrections to the mainstream theory. People who question a particular set of measurements, or find a correlation with sun activity for a certain part of the 20th century. I'm not saying these people aren't on to anything, or that they're dangerous or stupid. I agree with people like Freeman Dyson who questions the accuracy of climate models, and believe heretics are important to science.
What I'm saying is that I believe the only people who have formed a genuine alternative to climate theory are pundits and amateurs, who have taken these speculations and corrections, exaggerated their importance, added ideology, and created a worldview that rejects all of climate theory. Sort of like what creationists do, though not of course as bad.
Gunnar: AGW is fundamentally based on the idea that there is a radiative balance. In reality, there is no such scientific law. The actual known scientific law is Energy Conservation, known as the first law of thermodynamics
A scientific model or theory, like that of a radiative balance, does not have to be considered a scientific law to be true. To claim so would be a "logical fallacy", wouldnt it?
The theory of radiative balance is not only a key mechanisms in AGW, but also an important part in the current model of the socalled greenhouse effect. So it would be interesting if you could elaborate on your falsification of the radiative balance?
>> A scientific model or theory, like that of a radiative balance, does not have to be considered a scientific law to be true. To claim so would be a "logical fallacy", wouldnt it?
No, but if it violates a known law, then we can safely assume it is false.
>> The theory of radiative balance is not only a key mechanisms in AGW, but also an important part in the current model of the socalled greenhouse effect. So it would be interesting if you could elaborate on your falsification of the radiative balance?
A real greenhouse does not work because of any idea about radiative balance. It is an energy balance:
Energy In = Energy Out + Work Performed
Energy coming in as sunlight is shifted in frequency by the glass. Reflection from inside objects are long waves which cannot pass through the glass as easily. IR radiation from plants also cannot pass through the glass easily. Convection with outside cool air is prevented by the glass. Inside, the air absorbs radiation, heating it up. The plants absorb sunlight, and perform work using that energy. The energy not used to do work is lost by outgoing radiation plus conduction of heat through the glass.
Our atmosphere is not very similar to a greenhouse, but is more like a heat pipe. AGW constructs a false radiative balance because 1) it minimizes the importance of the sun, and 2) makes C02 seem artificially more important. Radiation In does not equal radiation out.
Energy In = Energy Out + Work Performed
Some examples of work performed: Feeding all humanity, feeding all animal kingdom, growth of every plant under the sun, all weather, including numerous hurricanes (each with an energy level of 200 times the world-wide electrical generating capacity), etc, etc.
Gunnar, MD, writes:
> Energy In = Energy Out + Work Performed
No, this would violate the first law of thermodynamics:
Energy can neither be destroyed nor created.
The correct formula is:
Energy In = Energy Out + Energy being stored in the system.
You claim that when something, eg. a hurricane, performs an amount of work, that this work does not have to be radiated to space. That this work is destroyed, lost.
Again, this would violate the first law of thermodynamics.
In the context of the earth this means that all energy we receive from the sun must either be somehow stored or it must be radiated back to space.
So, how can it be stored?
The only significant mechanism is by heating the planet. If the earth is radiating less energy than it receives it will heat up. A warmer planet will radiate more and will continue heating up till it radiates as much as it receives.
(feel free to calculate how much energy can be practically stored in other ways, eg. chemical bonds in plants)
Work performed and stored energy is the same. Doing work stores energy.
Here's one definition pulled of the web:
«(physics) a manifestation of energy; the transfer of energy from one physical system to another expressed as the product of a force and the distance through which it moves a body in the direction of that force; "work equals force times distance"»
But you are right that energy does not disappear. It is still in the system in some form or another.
Anonym, JB is right, read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy to get a better feel for it:
Work and heat are processes which add or subtract energy.
>> would violate the first law of thermodynamics
You forgot about kinetic energy. Work is a form of energy transfer, like Heat. When I put energy into my body (food), I release energy by radiation, through work (body operation and walking around all day), and through work (perspiration), and through work (constructing proteins, cells) etc. Note that from work being performed, my body temperature is constant, therefore my radiation is constant, no matter how much sun I'm receiving. The earth is a heat pipe, not a greenhouse.
>> The correct formula is:
dU = DQ -DW
increase in the internal energy of the system = amount of energy added as the result of heating - amount of energy lost as the result of work.
The problem is:
>> all energy we receive from the sun must either be somehow stored or it must be radiated back to space
Or be used to do Work. There is no "somehow". Of the radiation that Plants receive, only a small portion of that heats the plant. Some is reflected and some is not the right frequency to be absorbed. Some is used to for Work in various physiological processes, some is used for photorespiration, while the remainder is used for Photosynthesis.
The amount of energy released by evaporation greatly exceeds that released by heat transfer because of the approximately 580 cal needed to convert 1 g of liquid water to vapor.
http://ks.water.usgs.gov/Kansas/waterdata/climate/homepage.ijc.html
>> If the earth is radiating less energy than it receives it will heat up.
Actually, evaporation, sea currents, and air movement are examples of Work performed by a significant percentage of the incoming energy. This is not covered in the fictional radiative balance in AGW 101.
>> feel free to calculate how much energy can be practically stored in other ways, eg. chemical bonds in plants
As I've shown, there is a lot Work being performed, but actually, the chemical storage of energy is higher than you imply. About 5 percent of all available sun energy is conserved as chemical energy in the biomass of plants. This is not covered in the fictional radiative balance in AGW 101.
JB, Norway, 2007-08-31 writes:
> Work performed and stored energy is the same. Doing work stores energy.
No, this is not correct. Doing work converts energy from one form to another. A portion of the energy may be stored. Not all of it however, thanks to the second law of thermodynamics.
Gunnar, MD, 2007-08-31 writes:
> You forgot about kinetic energy. Work is a form of energy transfer, like Heat.
No, I have not forgotten about kinetic energy. All the work you cite, evaporation, air currents, sea currents transfer energy from one part of the planet to another. The energy remains on the planet and if the energy is not radiated away to space or stored the temperature of the planet will rise. (I am ignoring the small amount of work the planet does gravitationally on eg. the moon, that comes out of the earth's rotation and orbital speed).
You also write:
> About 5 percent of all available sun energy is conserved as chemical energy in the biomass of plants.
Please remember that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. How much of the solar energy that we have received for this period of time do you think remains locked away in chemical bonds in plants? While the total energy stored in plants, coal, oil and gas is a large number it is minuscle compared to the energy in 4.5 billion years of sunlight.
When is energy not stored? In what form is energy when it is not stored?
Taking about stored or not stored energy is actually meaningsless in this context.
When using the word stored in the context of energy, we're usually talking about some kind of energy in the form that can later be released to do some work.
Energy is always in one form or another. Whatever its form, it can always be considered stored in that form.
So the word stored in the context of energy has more of a practical meaning than anything else.
Actually energy, in itself, is not a thing. Energy doesn't exists. It's just a state you find something else in. And it's always relative to some other state.
So doing work is the same as storing energy, or the same as tranfsering energy from one state to another, or the same as changing the state (potential to do work) of one thing related to another thing. It's all the same. It's just different ways of saying the same thing.
JB, Norway, 2007-08-31 writes:
> Taking about stored or not stored energy is actually meaningsless in this context.
Actually, if you use the term "stored" to mean eg. energy stored in chemical bonds in plants and which therefore will not have to be radiated away to space(for a while), it does make sense in the context we are discussing. Feel free to ignore the term if you like. The effect is negligible.
There is no definition of 'stored energy' that excludes any given form the energy may be in. 'Stored' is in this context is a loose term that has more of a practical use (how stable is the energy) than anything else.
There are other ways to store energy than just in chemical bonds. For example mass at an elevated position (potential energy), in atomic bonds, heat (kinetic energy) etc.
I am not ignoring the term. It is you who appearantly put too much into it leading you to misunderstand, and trying to correct something that was not wrong, because the term was used differently than you are accustomed to.
>> Actually energy, in itself, is not a thing. Energy doesn't exists. It's just a state you find something else in. And it's always relative to some other state. So doing work is the same as storing energy
I think JB has really hit the nail on the head here. Anonym, you seem to hold to one of the early false ideas about energy that existed for thousands of years, namely, that energy was a substance of some kind.
I would also point out that if you look at the first law very carefully, it's about a change:
dU = DQ - DW, where U = Energy, Q = heat and W = WORK
You seem to be thinking that 1st law deals with the actual values. However, it's a differential equation, except the DQ and DW aren't real derivatives.
>> The energy remains on the planet and if the energy is not radiated away
You are implying that 1st law is Qin = Qout, when it's actually dU = DQ - DW.
Analogy #1: if I eat a good meal (energy in), and go out skiing all bundled up (very little DQ, because of good insulation), and after skiing all day, I would be hungry. You would say, why do you need to eat, you should still have all the energy, since you haven't radiated it away.
Analogy #2: if we took a cold piece of rock the size of the earth, that started at a temperature of 1 degree kelvin. And then we gave it an earth like atmosphere, and then we put it into orbit around a star identical to our beloved sol. The atmosphere would heat up rather quickly in the sunlight. But a lot of the solar energy would be used to melt ice, and evaporate ice directly into water vapor. That energy did work, and is not radiated out. And as the world turns, the atmosphere would radiate outwards, but heat would be transferred to the ocean and crust as well, causing the atmospheric temperatures to drop, reducing the outbound radiation. More importantly, water would condense, releasing energy that would also be transferred into the ice and land. This is nothing controversial, with two objects at different temperatures, you can write differential equations to describe how the temperature will start to equalize. I once worked on a project for a thermodynamics professor that involved 20 differential equations in 20 unknowns. How long would it take for this rock to reach equilibrium is a big thermodynamics problem.
The point of Analogy #1 is that there is no such law as radiative balance and that kinetic energy and thermal energy are the two main classifications of energy. Momentum = mass x velocity and work = force x distance. The unit of work is called Joule. Hmmm, recognize that? You cannot ignore the energy required to accelerate and move an object. The derivative of Work dW/dt is Power and the unit of Power is Watts. Hmmm, that's the same units as the incoming radiation. Get the picture? Maybe this will help.
The point of Analogy #2 is that no one knows the initial conditions, and therefore, no one knows if Earth is in equilibrium. It could take millions of more years for the earth's crust to be raised another couple of degrees. In other words, the earth is like a barrel that you can pour energy into. You don't know how big the barrel is, so you don't know when it will start to overflow. Bad analogy, but the point is that we don't know if earth is in equilibrium, and you are assuming it is, and pretending that the tremendous amount of work being performed doesn't exist.
Gunnar, MD, 2007-09-01:
> I think JB has really hit the nail on the head here. Anonym, you seem to hold to one of the early false ideas about energy that existed for thousands of years, namely, that energy was a substance of some kind.
Not at all, to me energy is just a number in an equation. Discussing whether this number in some sense exists or not is uninteresting sophistry. Just plug the numbers into the equation and calculate the result.
> I would also point out that if you look at the first law very carefully, it's about a change:
> dU = DQ - DW, where U = Energy, Q = heat and W = WORK
This is your mistake, W is not work in general it is work done on something external to the system.
> Analogy #1: if I eat a good meal (energy in), and go out skiing all bundled up (very little DQ, because of good insulation), and after skiing all day, I would be hungry. You would say, why do you need to eat, you should still have all the energy, since you haven't radiated it away.
No, in this case you are performing mechanical work on something external to yourself. In your example of a hurricane taking place on earth thing the situation is different because nothing outside the earth receives energy from the hurricane, therefore this energy is still on earth and the energy must still.
>> This is your mistake, W is not work in general it is work done on something external to the system.
Depends on how you define the system. Let's define the system as the Sun, and try your hypothesis: radiation coming in = radiation going out. Does it balance? Google Exothermic.
Let's define the system as the entire universe. There is no radiation going in (by definition). Is there radiation coming out? Gosh, it doesn't balance.
>> No, in this case you are performing mechanical work on something external to yourself.
No, the work is done on myself. Work = F X D. I exert force on my body, in the direction that I'm moving, plus all the work internal to my body, like pushing blood along, exhaling air, etc.
>> therefore this energy is still on earth and the energy must still.
But energy is not a substance. Work is energy. The 1st law says that in a given process, energy will be conserved, where heat and work represent energy. It does not say that the total energy of the universe is constant. E=mc2 says that matter can be transformed into energy and vice versa.
Is this relevant to climate change? I hope nobody's suggesting that something as basic as how you define energy and work can be used to prove for instance that the greenhouse effect isn't real. That's crank talk.
Nobody's suggesting that, Bjørn. But what what work is being done and where the energy flows, that is crucial to understanding the relevant science. And when people use the terms differently, that creates misunderstanding.
Bjørn Stærk, 2007-09-02 writes:
> I hope nobody's suggesting that something as basic as how you define energy and work can be used to prove for instance that the greenhouse effect isn't real.
This is exactly what Gunnar, MD is arguing. In message 31 he claims that the radiative balance is wrong because it is against the first law of thermodynamics.
I have tried to explain that he has massively misunderstood what the first law says, but it seems to be futile.
Gunnar, MD, 2007-09-01:
Depends on how you define the system. Let's define the system as the Sun, and try your hypothesis: radiation coming in = radiation going out. Does it balance? Google Exothermic.
Ha ha. Nice attempt to confuse the issue, but have you actually thought about what your version of the first law means?
How does the heat generated in the center of the sun migrate outwards? By having having energized particles doing work to energize their neighbours and they again energizing their neighbors.
If your version of the first law of thermodynamics was true the sun would not be able to radiate any heat at all.
> No, the work is done on myself.
Wrong, this would violate Newtons third law of motion: To every action force there is an equal, but opposite, reaction force
>> I hope nobody's suggesting that something as basic as how you define energy and work can be used to prove for instance that the greenhouse effect isn't real. That's crank talk.
Yes, actually, the entire AGW movement is really a turning away from science. Real scientific laws are replaced with fictitious ones. There are many such examples with AGW, but the most fundamental is that the real 1st law is replaced with a fictitious "radiative balance" law.
If this doesn't cause you to question AGW "science", and if you call people cranks who point out that their hypothesis relies on fictitious scientific laws, then you are also joining the movement that rejects science and the scientific method to invent a pseudo science to support a political agenda.
>> he claims that the radiative balance is wrong because it is against the first law of thermodynamics.
Look, there are two main types of energy, kinetic and thermal. There are 3 types of thermal energy heat transfers: radiation, convection, and conduction. Since AGW radiative balance ignores kinetic energy, convection and conduction, it's wrong and not the real 1st law.
>> your version of the first law
my version? I quote Wikipedia on the subject, and the same is explained in every basic science text. Amazing that you try to turn this around and claim that I'm inventing a new law. Where is yours explained? Only in AGW texts.
>> If your version of the first law of thermodynamics was true the sun would not be able to radiate any heat at all.
No, that's a straw man, since I don't claim that matter doesn't radiate. But your description is wrong. Although some is absorbed by the atmosphere, radiation from the sun hits us directly. It does not rely on any particle to particle radiation.
>> Wrong, this would violate Newtons third law of motion
No, it doesn't. I just went skating. I pushed against the ice to propel my body forward. The ice did not do the work, I did. You really have a long way to go explaining where the energy went, if you claim that Work isn't energy being expended.
>> If your version of the first law of thermodynamics was true the sun would not be able to radiate any heat at all.
Look, EM radiation is caused by only one thing, electric charges moving. This doesn't require any atmosphere to work. There could be a radiation source in space and if you were floating in space, you would be subject to that radiation. A hydrogen bomb would vaporize someone in empty space, if they were too close. No atmosphere required.
You still haven't explained how the so called "radiative balance" works when I define the system as the Sun.
Gunnar, MD, 2007-09-03 writes:
> my version? I quote Wikipedia on the subject, and the same is explained in every basic science text. Amazing that you try to turn this around and claim that I'm inventing a new law. Where is yours explained? Only in AGW texts.
It is explained in the very wikipedia article you referenced: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy
Please pay attention to this paragraph:
where δQ is the amount of energy added to the system by a heating process, δW is the amount of energy lost by the system due to work done by the system on its surroundings and dU is the increase in the internal energy of the system.
emphasis mine.
>> On its surroundings
Reactions do work on their surroundings when the volume of the system expands during the course of the reaction
Earth is not one process, but a collection of many, many processes, therefore, your choice of system is incorrect.
Another error is revealed in the first sentence of wiki article:
the conservation of energy states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant, although it may change forms, e.g. friction turns kinetic energy into thermal energy [and of course turning thermal energy into kinetic].
The 1st law of thermo is a subset of the general law of energy conservation, which applies only to purely "thermodynamic" systems.
In addition, Your claim of radiative balance violates this:
You have yet to explain how the sun or a person fits in with your "radiative balance" law. You also have not explained where the energy comes from to move us all around? Your analysis is also flawed by the fact that there is more than one heating source for earth.
Gunnar, MD, 2007-09-03:
Sigh, is it possible to be so stupid or are you just trolling?
> Reactions do work on their surroundings when the volume of the system expands during the course of the reaction
This is meaningless blathering.
> Earth is not one process, but a collection of many, many processes, therefore, your choice of system is incorrect.
No, the system can be anything you want to calculate something about.
> Another error is revealed in the first sentence of wiki article: > the conservation of energy states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant, although it may change forms, e.g. friction turns kinetic energy into thermal energy [and of course turning thermal energy into kinetic].
Yes. It reveals an error in your thinking. Friction turning kinetic energy into thermal energy is exactly what you claim is not happening.
> The 1st law of thermo is a subset of the general law of energy conservation, which applies only to purely "thermodynamic" systems.
This "general" law is your invention.
> In addition, Your claim of radiative balance violates this:
> The most significant result of this distinction is the fact that one can clearly state the amount of internal energy possessed by a thermodynamic system, but one cannot tell how much energy has flowed into or out of the system as a result of its being heated or cooled, nor as the result of work being performed on or by the system
You are seriously misreading this. The paragraph states that one cannot know the history of a system by knowing its internal energy. You have no way of knowing if it was cooler or hotter earlier nor whether the energy added or taken away was kinetic or thermal.
You have yet to explain how the sun or a person fits in with your "radiative balance" law. You also have not explained where the energy comes from to move us all around? Your analysis is also flawed by the fact that there is more than one heating source for earth.
Sigh. This is because your earlier claim was:
> Energy In = Energy Out + Work Performed
I did not want to confuse your feeble mind with additional complications. Anyway:
Energy Out = Energy In + Stored energy being liberated.
Very simple yes? In the case of the sun the energy is liberated by nuclear fusion, in the case of the body by breaking chemical bonds and in the case of the earth by spontaneous fission and tidal effects.
Gunnar, MD, 2007-09-03:
> Look, there are two main types of energy, kinetic and thermal. There are 3 types of thermal energy heat transfers: radiation, convection, and conduction. Since AGW radiative balance ignores kinetic energy, convection and conduction, it's wrong and not the real 1st law.
The earth does not transfer non-negligible amounts of energy to the rest of the universe in any way except radiation.
What your hurricanes do on the planet is completely irrelevant.
> No, that's a straw man, since I don't claim that matter doesn't radiate. But your description is wrong. Although some is absorbed by the atmosphere, radiation from the sun hits us directly. It does not rely on any particle to particle radiation.
Yes it does, fusion generates gamma rays, neutrons and protons, this is very different from what we're getting.
I give up, as I see JB has as well.
Gunnar, MD, 2007-09-04:
> I give up, as I see JB has as well.
Please note that JB´s last message clearly indicated that he misunderstood what you were saying.
Please, Anonym Feiging, stop being so arrogant.
Have it ever occured to you that it might be possible that you are the one who has been misunderstanding?
>> This is meaningless blathering.
I gave up with Anonym, but I wanted to clarify this for Bjorn and other readers. Anonym does an excellent job of representing AGW "science". For example, what Anonym calls "meaningless blathering" is actually straight from science 101, and can be found in any basic text book. Bjorn, please find a science teacher/person you respect and ask him if:
To clarify the distinction between real science and AGW pseudo science, consider this restatement of the real first law, and compare to AGW 1st law:
1st Law: The change in the internal energy of a system is equal to the sum of the heat gained or lost by the system and the work done by or on the system. Delta Esys = q + w
AGW: radiation In = radiation Out
In the real 1st law, solar energy does work ON the system, by evaporating water, causing the movement of huge masses of air and water, etc, etc, etc. The system also does work on the surroundings by expanding, etc. The bottom line is that AGW pretends that work doesn't exist, and that Esys cannot change.
JB, you appear to have misunderstood Gunnar's point, which was precisely that you can overturn global warming theory with a correct understanding of basic science. I'm not very interested in the details of your argument with Anonym Feiging, (Norwegian for Anonymous Coward, btw), but I am surprised that you're not taking more of a middle ground. I don't think there are many skeptical scientists who would go at global warming with a definition of work, like Gunnar does.
Gunnar, I'm not going to "ask someone I respect", so far you haven't said anything that doesn't raise my crank flags. You have to realize how often I see this: a well-read and intelligent amateur claiming that obvious and basic arguments can be used to overturn an established theory. HIV, evolution, 9/11, (and yeah the H-word as well, but no moral comparison). Martin Gardner wrote a wonderful book in the 50's (In the Name of Science), about the many strange and brilliant people in the world of pseudoscience, where he covers many ideas like these. Spotting these thought patterns has become almost a hobby of mine, and I'm looking at one that fits many of the signs right now.
I'm not able to evaluate what you and the rest here are discussing. That may mean that you're all smarter than I am, or it may be that I know my own limitations better. But here's what I know, here's what I feel qualified to say, based on quite a lot of familiarity with these discussions: You don't go up against an entire field of science with an introductory textbook. It's possible that your sling will kill Goliath, but rational observers will bet against it.
My unwillingness to listen shouldn't concern you - after all, David didn't stand around arguing with onlookers, he went right out on the field of battle and threw the stone. In the same way, you're wasting your time trying to convince an amateur like me, who's interested only in rules of thumb for making a good bet, not in scientific detail. You claim to have an observation of major importance on your hand. Go see a scientist about it. A climate skeptic, if you don't trust the rest. Get someone to publish a paper about it, or do it yourself if you're qualified. Get some more weight behind it than the words of an anonymous blog reader.
>> with a definition of work
I am using the standard definition of work.
>> amateur claiming that obvious and basic arguments can be used
With an electrical engineering degree, I'm not an amateur.
>> to overturn an established theory
It's not an established theory. Only the scientific method can move a hypothesis up to theory status. There is no experimental evidence.
>> against an entire field of science with an introductory textbook
There is no entire field of AGW science. Arrhenius advanced this AGW notion in 1896, and it was discredited by his contemporaries. After 100 years, his AGW equation has never been confirmed by empirical evidence. Callendar advocated AGW, but fudged the evidence to advance his agenda. Thatcher advocated it for political reasons. Mann & Hansen advocated, but have been discredited. Less than half of global climate papers agree with AGW. Over 1700 scientists specifically deny AGW. This is amazing, given that the US is spending 3+ billion dollars on studies that promote AGW, and disagreeing is very dangerous to a scientists career.
Did you know that there is no explicit written hypothesis for how AGW is supposed to work? Steve McIntyre (an IPCC reviewer), who is also agnostic about AGW, has been searching and asking every major AGW scientist he comes across for the scientific description for how C02 would raise the temperature, and to date, has found none. They fall back on the Arrhenius paper.
>> Go see a scientist about it
I am an applied scientist. Besides, there are plenty of folks doing that, like Tom Segalstad (http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/esef0.htm)
>> Get someone to publish a paper about it
Why, would it pay? Besides, there are plenty of top notch scientists who don't agree with AGW. They are not cranks:
http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2007/globalwarming/SkepticalScientists.asp
Gunnar, MD, 2007-09-05:
> Reactions do work on their surroundings when the volume of the system expands during the course of the reaction.
Please note that this is a selective, in my opinion dishonestly so, quote. The full section from Gunnar's link is:
The paragraph the quote is snipped from talks about what chemical reactions normally do. It does not say that all thermodynamic systems only does this. It does not even say that all chemical reactions only does this.
Please note my emphasis, this is what Gunnar seems unable to understand.
>JB, you appear to have misunderstood Gunnar's point, which was precisely that you can overturn global warming theory with a correct understanding of basic science. ...... > but I am surprised that you're not taking more of a middle ground. -------------
I am surprised about that statement, because as far as I am aware, I have not been taking any position in this discussion between Gunnar and Anonym.
What I first pointed out is that Anonym was wrong when he criticized the version of the energy law Gunnar presented. And in my oppinion, this was a misunderstanding of the wording being used, and nothing else.
Then, as a followup, I criticized the very limited usage of the consept 'storing energy' Anonym used. I pointed out that 'storing' in this contect has more to do with for what purpose energy is being used, more than a scientific definition of what form the energy is.
In neither case this has to do with correct application of physics. Therefore I also disagreed with you that the disagreement between Gunnar and Anonym was about the correct understanding of basic physics. It was more about correct usage of some relevant terms.
>I don't think there are many skeptical scientists who would go at global warming with a definition of work, like Gunnar does. ------------ I am not goint to comment on the discussion at large here. I have not been following it, since when two person who don't share the same understanding of the terms are throwing rhetorics at each other, I don't believe anything can come out of it.
And as I write earlier in this post, I have not been taking sides here at all. But when Anonym suddenly throws out some arrogant claims about me and what I don't understand, I felt like answering.
>> It does not say that all thermodynamic systems only does this.
Straw man, since it does not matter. If a system expands, work is being done. If there is any work being done on earth, then the radiative balance idea is falsified. My previous statement is conceptually correct, but I would like to correct it wrt sign convention ("The sign convention for this equation reflects the fact that the internal energy of the system decreases when the system does work on its surroundings")
1st Law: The change in the internal energy of a system is equal to the sum of the heat gained or lost by the system and the work done by or on the system. Delta Esys = q + w
AGW: radiation In = radiation Out
Which, mathematically, you can only get if w=0 and Esys is constant.
In reality, solar energy does work ON the system, by evaporating water, melting ice, causing the movement of huge masses of air and water, expanding air, expanding water, expanding crust/core, etc, etc, etc. The system also does work on the surroundings by contracting air, contracting water, etc.
The bottom line is that AGW pretends that work doesn't exist, and that Esys cannot change.
Gunnar: "I am using the standard definition of work. "
Quite possible. Are you also applying it correctly? Do you fully understand the theory you're attacking? There are many pitfalls here.
"With an electrical engineering degree, I'm not an amateur. "
Everyone is an amateur outside their own profession, but my point is that it's possible to be intelligent, well-read about a subject, and still to come to some very wrong conclusions. In fact being brilliant often leads to greater errors, because such people rely on their own reasoning powers too much. That's why we need science, to compensate for the flaws of smart individuals.
"there are plenty of top notch scientists who don't agree with AGW. They are not cranks"
Certainly. I don't think I've ever said they were. (The Swindle documentary, for instance, was clearly wrong about many things, but that's not the same thing.) I think, however, that you might be one.
JB: "I am surprised about that statement, because as far as I am aware, I have not been taking any position in this discussion between Gunnar and Anonym."
Very well. It's easy to get a wrong impression about sides in a debate.
>> Are you also applying it correctly? Do you fully understand the theory you're attacking?
Yes and Yes. It's clear from the above that both you and Anonym don't understand the theories (Sci Laws, rather than hypothesis) that you are attacking.
>> There are many pitfalls here.
Far fewer pitfalls than deciding which side is correct, based on the stridency of their arguments. That is the sign of a complete crank.
>> Everyone is an amateur outside their own profession,
Physics, Electromagnetics and Thermodynamics are within my profession.
>> "there are plenty of top notch scientists who don't agree with AGW. They are not cranks" Certainly. I don't think I've ever said they were.
You definitely implied it. They aren't cranks, but since I agree with them, I am?
>> (The Swindle documentary, for instance, was clearly wrong about many things, but that's not the same thing.)
I haven't seen it, but can you give us an example?
>> I think, however, that you might be one
Apparently, based on irrational wishful thinking to support your "decision" to get off the fence. It's truly cranky to decide which side is right about a scientific issue, without looking into the science itself, not using the scientific method, or determining who is following the SM, but based only on your gut feel about who is probably right. That's not a crank, that's an irrational person.
>> Spotting these thought patterns has become almost a hobby of mine
And I've spent a lifetime spotting the thought patterns of "manias" and the irrational people who believe in them. One clear sign is believing in something without any evidence. You believe what you want to believe, not where the facts and reason lead you.
Gunnar, MD, 2007-09-06:
Why do you cite references when you ignore what they say?
> Straw man, since it does not matter. If a system expands, work is being done.
The system in discussion is the earth. Are you suggesting that the earth is expanding?
Even if it did you are forgetting this sentence from the work you cited:
You realize, I hope, that the earth is in a (for all practical purposes) vacuum? If the pressure term is zero the work term is zero.> 1st Law: The change in the internal energy of a system is equal to the sum of the heat gained or lost by the system and the work done by or on the system. Delta Esys = q + w
No, that is the law in your fantasies only. You are omitting the references to the surroundings as usual.
> Far fewer pitfalls than deciding which side is correct, based on the stridency of their arguments. That is the sign of a complete crank.
A way to decide which side is correct with very few pitfalls is to see who is misquoting the supposed evidence they are presenting.
Gunnar: "It's clear from the above that both you and Anonym don't understand the theories (Sci Laws, rather than hypothesis) that you are attacking."
I haven't attacked any of your theories. I'm not qualified to.
"You definitely implied it. They aren't cranks, but since I agree with them, I am?"
Crankiness is a style, not a particular belief.
"You believe what you want to believe, not where the facts and reason lead you."
I think you need to reread my post. Facts and reason led me to believe something I don't want to believe. However, I'm operating on a different level than you are, ie. "what is science", not "is there a radiative balance". But I've explained this many times already. It's odd of you to spend so much time trying to convince me, and so little trying to gain my respect by understanding what my approach is, and how it differs from yours. You're talking in one direction, but I'm standing somewhere else, and the least I expect is that you turn and face me.
>> you ignore what they say?
I don't. You just don't understand.
>> Are you suggesting that the earth is expanding?
Yes, certainly almost everything is subject to thermal expansion.
>> Even if it did you are forgetting this sentence from the work you cited:
No, that's where I got the sign wrong. The work of thermal expansion is the sun doing work on the earth.
>> If the pressure term is zero the work term is zero.
But it's not, the work is being done against the force of gravity.
>> No, that is the law in your fantasies only. You are omitting the references to the surroundings as usual.
Maybe you don't understand english that well. I wish I could explain it in Norwegian, but currently, my norwegian is far worse than your english.
1st Law: The change in the internal energy of a system is equal to the sum of the heat gained or lost by the system and the work done by the system on the surroundings or on the system by the surroundings . Delta Esys = q + w
Sorry, it's not a fantasy. It's the real 1st law. The work is not zero. Esys is not constant. Therefore, radiative balance is falsified.
>> I haven't attacked any of your theories. I'm not qualified to.
By supporting the AGW idea, you are attacking known scientific laws, such as the 1st law of thermo, 2nd law of thermo, Henry's law, and others. In addition, you are attacking the scientific method itself.
>> Facts and reason led me to believe something I don't want to believe. However, I'm operating on a different level than you are, ie. "what is science",
So you claim, but as JB pointed out long ago, it's suspicious that you don't identify what those facts and reasons are. I'm not interested in discussing the philosophy of science, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that yours is irrational.
>> [not] trying to gain my respect by understanding what my approach is
I can see no reason to try to "gain your respect". Your "approach" is one that continually leads to incorrect conclusions. Besides, you flatter yourself, since you forget that I said "I wanted to clarify this for Bjorn and other readers."
>> the least I expect is that you turn and face me.
I could say the same.
Gunnar, MD, 2007-09-07:
>> you ignore what they say?
> I don't. You just don't understand.
I understand for instance that this quote from your science 101 link:
Is very much at odds with your earlier statement: Are you willing to retract the above statement?> Yes, certainly almost everything is subject to thermal expansion.
So you are suggesting that a portion of the energy we get from the sun is not re-radiated, but used to make the earth expand?
Please remember that the earth has existed a long time, what was the size of the earth 1, 2, 3 and 4 billion years ago in your universe?
> But it's not, the work is being done against the force of gravity.
You need to be careful here. The work is being done against the earth's gravity. Not against the surrounding's gravity. This method can store energy that later can be liberated, but it cannot transfer energy to the surroundings of the earth.
> Maybe you don't understand english that well. I wish I could explain it in Norwegian, but currently, my norwegian is far worse than your english.
I would suggest you put some effort into understanding how one writes about science in english. The ideal is to present the science as succinctly as possible, only present what is relevant to the subject being discussed.
When you habitually quote some random fragment, in some cases even just part of a sentence, your quote will not usually make any sense at all.
>1st Law: The change in the internal energy of a system is equal to the sum of the heat gained or lost by the system and the work done by the system on the surroundings or on the system by the surroundings .
> Delta Esys = q + w
> Sorry, it's not a fantasy. It's the real 1st law. The work is not zero. Esys is not constant. Therefore, radiative balance is falsified.
How nice of you to boldface the part that you have repeatedly omitted.
Now, exactly what work does the earth do on its surroundings? As I noted earlier, earth's gravity is part of the earth. The energy in any work done against it does not leave the earth.
>> Earth is not one process, but a collection of many, many processes, therefore, your choice of system is incorrect. Are you willing to retract the above statement?
Perhaps a bad choice of words. The first part of true, it is a collection of many processes. You are correct that a system choice can be arbitrarily chosen. It just might make it difficult to analyze the processes that go on.
>> So you are suggesting that a portion of the energy we get from the sun is not re-radiated, but used to make the earth expand?
Yes, a portion of the energy we receive from the sun is used to do work. This is like elementary school stuff, that I'm amazed that I have to write it. I'm not sure where you think the energy comes from to do all the work that is being done on earth, like moving huge currents of air and water, expanding air, water and land, evaporating water, melting ice, feeding all plants and animals, etc, etc, etc.
>> Now, exactly what work does the earth do on its surroundings?
Expanding air and water do work on the surroundings, and this subtracts from energy going out, ie what is available to be radiated out.
I guess you missed "on the system by the surroundings", which is also part of the W term. This subtracts from the energy coming in.
I think I've said and repeated this over and over again. If you still don't get it, I'll have to leave you in ignorance.
Gunnar, MD, 2007-09-08:
> I guess you missed "on the system by the surroundings", which is also part of the W term. This subtracts from the energy coming in.
English must not be your first language, I assume? Let's see if we can correct a few deficiencies.
- "on the system by ..." Please try to find somebody
who can explain simple English grammar to you. You will find that
the sentence refers to work which adds energy to the system.
- "on", this preposition has multiple meanings. A feeble English-speaker may only know the most
common ones like when it is used as a function word to indicate position in or in contact with an outer surface "the fly landed on the ceiling". A fluent speaker will understand from
context that the
word here is used as a function word to indicate destination or the focus of some action, movement, or directed effort "crept up on him"
- "earth", while a struggling beginner may think that the word
refers to the stuff which plants grow in, a fluent speaker will
know that "earth" has multiple meanings and will understand that
in context the correct meaning is "planet earth".
This includes both land and
sea and also air and gravity field.
- "surroundings" in context the intelligent reader
understands that this refers to something
which is not part of planet earth.
If we simplify the sentence to "subject verb preposition object"-form, perhaps it is easier to understand(brackets added to help you pick out the terms):(something not part of planet earth) (does work) (on) (planet earth)
(It may not be strictly correct to call "does work" a verb, but it is hopefully easier to understand this way). Please ask a schoolteacher for a better explanation.
Wow, talk about a fall from grace. Bjoern, you used to be a reasonable right-of-center blogger. Now you lost it completely. Consensus of scientists makes you inclined to believe Al Gore's rantings? There used to be a majority "consensus" among scientists to believe in the Steady State theory also, but we all know what happen to that. Just a matter of time before Instapundit removes you from his blog links.
Sixtus: "Wow, talk about a fall from grace. Bjoern, you used to be a reasonable right-of-center blogger."
What does climate change have to do with left and right politics? Only one thing, as far as I can see: The unwillingness of people to believe anything that collides with their ideology. Preventing global warming probably requires state intervention, so the left likes it, and the right doesn't. Now, I'm still right of center, on the Norwegian axis, (I couldn't care less where I would be in Colorado), and I'd like to believe there's a market-friendly solution here. Still hoping for it. But my economic views are logically separate from the science of the climate change, and that's what I'm writing about here - whether I like the conclusion or not.
As requested, some alternative reading:
Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years.
Review here: "Challenge to Scientific Consensus on Global Warming: Analysis Finds Hundreds of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made Global Warming Fears".