Jump to content

What does it mean to "believe in climate change"?

What do you believe about climate change?  

30 members have voted

  1. 1. What do you believe about climate change?

    • I'm a believer and I expect ~1ºC per CO2 doubling.
      0
    • I'm a sceptic and I expect ~1ºC per CO2 doubling.
      3
    • I'm a believer and I expect 1-2ºC per CO2 doubling.
      4
    • I'm a sceptic and I expect 1-2ºC per CO2 doubling.
      0
    • I'm a believer and I expect >2ºC per CO2 doubling.
      2
    • I'm a sceptic and I expect
      4
    • I'm a believer and I have no idea what to expect from CO2 doubling.
      6
    • I'm a sceptic and I have no idea what to expect from CO2 doubling.
      11


Recommended Posts

I find it frustrating that people tell me they believe in climate change but are unable to tell me what that means. The key is the CO2 sensitivity of the climate system.

Basic global warming physics, which few question, states that doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere should increase average global temperatures by 1ºC. I and others often refer to this as anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Does accepting this make you a believer?

 

Climate modellers tell us that according to their simulations, there are positive feedbacks in the climate system and therefore doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will increase global temperatures by between 1.5ºC and 4.5ºC depending on the model. Do you have to believe this to be a believer?

 

In order for global warming to be a serious threat, the CO2 sensitivity of the climate would have to be I think at least 2ºC per doubling since a doubling is an awful lot of CO2 and the governments of the world are generally aiming to keep the temperature rise below 2ºC. Anything much over 2ºC per doubling is sometimes referred to as catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW).

Anything less than this, and the drastic and very expensive measures being takes to reduce CO2 production are probably unnecessary.

 

Does a believer take the mean value of the models: 3ºC per doubling? Or are you a believer if you think it's toward the lower end, say 1.5ºC per doubling?

Perhaps a true believer assumes the worst case, of 4.5ºC per doubling.

 

I honestly have no idea. Nobody who I've asked on this forum who describes themselves as a believer will give me a figure. I'd really like to know.

 

Since I'm bound to be asked, I've often been called a denier, but I fall into the often quoted statistics along the lines "the vast majority of scientists believe mankind is changing the climate", and anybody using that statistic is clearly claiming me as a believer.

My opinion is that the modelling is not to be trusted and I strongly suspect that the CO2 sensitivity of the climate is around 1ºC per doubling.

 

Update:

There are assumptions in the phrasing of this question that I did not think would be controversial. However it might be wise to look at post #87 by Mikes10 who makes a challenge to my summary above.

Edited by unbeliever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You come across like a man who's house is on fire quibbling about the relative flammability of the curtains versus the settee and all the while inhaling smoke and failing to leave the building.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you sure the of the quote "the vast majority of scientists believe in man made global warming"?

 

I did a Google search, got three results, one of them was this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you sure the of the quote "the vast majority of scientists believe in man made global warming"?

 

I did a Google search, got three results, one of them was this thread.

 

I may be paraphrasing a little. Similar statements appear a lot and I wanted a catch-all. I'll update.

 

---------- Post added 01-08-2015 at 09:43 ----------

 

You come across like a man who's house is on fire quibbling about the relative flammability of the curtains versus the settee and all the while inhaling smoke and failing to leave the building.

 

Bit of a false analogy in my view.

Not answered the poll I notice.

 

If the effect of CO2 on global temperatures was limited to 0.1ºC total, would you still think it a good idea to spend £1trillion trying to prevent it?

Edited by unbeliever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I may be paraphrasing a little. Similar statements appear a lot and I wanted a catch-all.

 

Fair enough, I think it's important to emphasise the consensus of the scientists in that field of study, for example "97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities"

 

That came from http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

 

---------- Post added 01-08-2015 at 09:49 ----------

 

I've not answered the poll either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fair enough, I think it's important to emphasise the consensus of the scientists in that field of study, for example "97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities"

 

That came from http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

 

 

There are a lot around. This one doesn't apply to me since I'm not a climate scientist.

If that was the only one which was in circulation, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are a lot around. This one doesn't apply to me since I'm not a climate scientist.

If that was the only one which was in circulation, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

 

It doesn't apply to you?

 

I don't understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"the vast majority of scientists believe in man made global warming"

 

Scientists don't do beliefs or truths in their professional capacity.

They create models which explain observations and that can be tested.

A good model can be used to make good predictions.

Global warming is not understood well enough to make accurate models-yet.

Current predictions are therefore inaccurate and cannot be the basis of any belief.

 

Scientists might support a model/theory/viewpoint but they do not believe in one.

 

Unfortunately a scientists career success is often based on their publications. Scientists who understand the complexity and unreliability of their work do not get published as often as those who can be quoted or edited with tags like belief, fact and truth to support a tabloid article or a forum topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I may be paraphrasing a little. Similar statements appear a lot and I wanted a catch-all. I'll update.

 

---------- Post added 01-08-2015 at 09:43 ----------

 

 

Bit of a false analogy in my view.

Not answered the poll I notice.

 

If the effect of CO2 on global temperatures was limited to 0.1ºC total, would you still think it a good idea to spend £1trillion trying to prevent it?

 

No, it's utterly facile and pointless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"the vast majority of scientists believe in man made global warming"

 

Scientists don't do beliefs or truths in their professional capacity.

They create models which explain observations and that can be tested.

A good model can be used to make good predictions.

Global warming is not understood well enough to make accurate models-yet.

Current predictions are therefore inaccurate and cannot be the basis of any belief.

 

Scientists might support a model/theory/viewpoint but they do not believe in one.

 

Unfortunately a scientists career success is often based on their publications. Scientists who understand the complexity and unreliability of their work do not get published as often as those who can be quoted or edited with tags like belief, fact and truth to support a tabloid article or a forum topic.

 

Correct observation Annie and very apt.

 

In my view all or certainly most models agree that there is both an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere and that global temperatures are rising. There is a lot of debate on whether this is caused by mankind or not, but even there the consensus is that human activity has some form of impact, it is just not necessarily the sole cause.

 

Causal relations are extremely hard to prove and disprove. A brilliant example is that a rise in child-birth coincided with a massive rise in storks. That does not prove that storks deliver babies though. What can not be disproven is that there might be a element that was at the foundation of both events.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, it's utterly facile and pointless.

 

So you find the question awkward, you don't have a good answer, and you're therefore declaring it invalid.

 

---------- Post added 01-08-2015 at 11:12 ----------

 

It doesn't apply to you?

 

I don't understand.

 

I'm a scientist with a rather advanced understanding of physics, but I'm not an actively publishing climate scientist. So the NASA version does not apply to me.

Edited by unbeliever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a scientist with a rather advanced understanding of physics, but I'm not an actively publishing climate scientist. So the NASA version does not apply to me.

 

Sorry, but that is nonsense. You are effectively stating here that the NASA work is irrelevant because you are not an actively publishing climate scientist? Or you are saying the work is incorrect, because it does not include all scientists even if they have no interest in climate change?

 

Why would it be at all relevant whether it applies to you or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.