Too often people who disagree with the current consensus of world experts in climate shift resort to arguments from ignorance, almost always decrying the current theory as invalid yet offering no alternative hypothesis. They claim the scientific process itself is biased and often point to shadowy organizations propagating the myth of global warming.
Andrew Dessler, who I met while attending Texas A&M and who works in the atmospheric sciences department has to deal with several prominent colleges who disagree about the cause of global warming; their culprits are clouds and changes in reflectivity.
Not wanting to let the other side get the credit if the opposition happened to be correct, Mr. Dressler took their idea and put it to the scientific test…and it failed. Through meticulous observation of the weather patterns of the Pacific, his data led to the conclusion that, while cloud formation and trends may act to amplify the greenhouse effect, clouds cannot be the root cause of global climate change.
“The bottom line is that clouds have not replaced humans as the cause of the recent warming the Earth is experiencing,” Dessler says.
Yet I doubt this will eliminate the theory of cloud caused climate shift at the university, even if the study is repeated. Some people will still propagate the idea (now that it is loose on the web) and may not be either invested enough or perhaps confident enough to conduct their own study of the issue and submit their data to the test. Like my alumnus, Mr. Dressler, I find my self eagerly awaiting the responses of some of my less than favorite professors and their wacky theories.
14 comments
1 ping
Skip to comment form ↓
The Lorax
September 10, 2011 at 04:59 (UTC -4) Link to this comment
The right way to challenge pseudoscience: provide facts.
The way we are currently challenging pseudoscience: providing… uh… facts.
I guess what we need to do is re-create everything, from the Moon landing, to evolution, to the Big Bang, right in front of their faces, in order for them to accept that it’s plausible?
Ask why is it so?
September 10, 2011 at 16:11 (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Theory is science talk for opinion and opinion is not fact its just one persons point of view. Like everything in life, you should always have a degree of skepticism, it keeps you thinking. Blindly following either side without exploring all their theories makes you a fool. Spencer’s camp came up with the Cloud theory, Dressler responded, Spencer’s camp will respond and so on. That’s how science works. Everyone can have a theory (i.e. opinion) and it’s up to the rest to test it and that’s what Dressler did. It shouldn’t be about who is right and who is wrong, it should be about the science. It’s all getting too much about the Scientist and not the science.
Each camp has their followers, each has credible people in many scientific fields and each camp will provide theories to support their core purpose; To warm or not to warm that is the question. I have looked at Spencer’s Cloud Theory and glanced at Dresslers response and I think it was a waste of a tree to print any of it. Neither side has won this one and I mean the two side of global warming not the Scientists.
Stilts
September 11, 2011 at 22:27 (UTC -4) Link to this comment
1) No. No, the word “theory” is not, in fact, “science talk” for “opinion”.
2) Within your worldview, facts are indistinguishable from opinions anyway (“Facts” are presumably statements containing knowledge about the universe, which–as understood by humans–will necessarily emerge from what you describe as “theories” and “points of view”, which–as you explain–are mere “opinions”, so.), which makes everything else you have to say go completely moot.
James B
September 10, 2011 at 21:10 (UTC -4) Link to this comment
This only works if the deniers are willing to accept the facts. A couple of days ago I got into a discussion with a co-workers about global warming and the science behind why humans are a cause. I slapped down a few standard objections then he ended the discussion with “that’s only true if you believe in it. Besides Jesus is coming back soon so it doesn’t matter.”
What can you do with that type of fatalism.
Ask why is it so?
September 11, 2011 at 05:26 (UTC -4) Link to this comment
The fact is there is no dispute that the earth warms up and cools down; what causes it is the question. Data on the last ten years of temperature show the mean temperature of the earth has stalled but CO2 has continued to increase so science is looking for additional reasons why the earth has been warming over the last 40 years. This is what Spencer’s paper was about. Whether it is right or wrong, it’s a theory not fact. It’s not about convincing you, it about an open mind to both sides until the theories are proven either way. The fact that temperature has stalled contradicts the theory that CO2 is the driver of temperature of the earth. Believers have spent years saying CO2 is the cause and Skeptics have spent years saying it doesn’t. Current temperature data supports the skeptics. So where does it go from here. There will be more theories and more papers and the debate will continue.
Richard Simons
September 12, 2011 at 04:52 (UTC -4) Link to this comment
No it hasn’t. Given the natural variability of Earth’s average temperature, 10 years is too short a period for you to say anything about whether it is increasing or not. Besides, if you calculate the regression using the dataset of your choice, you will find that there has been an increase.
For decades, scientists have been trying to find all possible drivers of climate that might have a non-trivial effect.
I suspect you do not understand the relationship between facts and theories in science. Theories are explanations for the facts. No matter how much evidence accumulates, a theory never grows into a fact.
So-called skeptics have never produced a plausible explanation for the current rise in temperatures, nor given any credible reason to question the last 150 years of physics, which is why it is more appropriate to call them denialists.
Chris from Europe
September 11, 2011 at 16:53 (UTC -4) Link to this comment
A scientific theory is not a mere opinion. ‘Skeptics’ that definitively say something is not the cause despite the data disproving them are not skeptics at all. They are mindless contrarians and the actual believers.
Ask why is it so?
September 12, 2011 at 10:02 (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I agree, perhaps I don’t speak scientific and I use simple English to express myself SO if I THINK something is true, I call this a THEORY and if I KNOW it to be true I CALL THAT A FACT. In your minds the earth is warming therefore Global Warming is a FACT and that CO2 is the driver, in your minds is a FACT. That’s great but I just don’t agree and that’s a FACT.
Richard Simons
September 12, 2011 at 23:09 (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Why don’t you agree that CO2 is driving global warming? As AA writes in the first sentence, “Too often people who disagree with the current consensus of world experts in climate shift resort to arguments from ignorance, almost always decrying the current theory as invalid yet offering no alternative hypothesis.” What do you have to offer?
Jared Teets
September 13, 2011 at 10:14 (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Evidence shows that the earth is warming.
Evidence shows that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect.
Evidence shows that CO2 is increasing due to human activity.
You can use whatever “simple English” you want to express your opinions, but they don’t, in any way, change the evidence. You claim to be a skeptic but are unwilling to change your opinion despite massive amounts of evidence to the contrary. You’re not a skeptic, you’re a contrarian.
Ask why is it so?
September 13, 2011 at 10:37 (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Thank you for asking:
The molecular composition of the atmosphere does not determine the maximum day time/day light hours temperature of the planet, that job is done by solar radiation (short wave) absorbed by the surface of the planet. The Greenhouse effect exists and it uses re-emitted radiation (long wave) to prevent cooling, contributes to maintaining a temperature below the maximum. Radiation absorbed by CO2, short wave only at 2.6um, maximum absorption long wave 13-15um or 14-16um depending on whose research. No matter how much CO2 in atmosphere does not increase absorption ability of CO2, maximum temperature achieved by one molecule = maximum temperature achieve by multiple number. That is, heat is not cumulative, the area heated may increase but the temperature will not. You can’t add 1 molecule 10oC + 1 molecule 10oC and get 20oC the heat equalizes and the temperature is 10oC. Energy In/Energy Out budget is determined by Short Wave in = short wave out,long wave out plus heat (thermal energy). You cannot increase the amount of radiation (total energy) above the amount of radiation received. Maximum input comes from the sun and therefore nothing within the troposphere can increase the temperature above the source. If we could get more energy out of the radiation in the troposphere than is put in then the earth would warm up but this is impossible. Global warming by CO2 is based on the CO2 molecule ‘trapping’ the heat, they mean long wave radiation and forcing it back down to the surface of the planet thereby increasing the temperature of the planet. Radiation is not heat, heat is produced when the radiation is absorbed. Radiation sent back up to be forced back down (as long wave radiation) to be re-absorbed by the earth cannot add to the temperature produced by short wave radiation, it just doesn’t have the power. Remember short wave radiation is constant during daylight hours. CO2 molecules just aren’t very good at re-emitting radiation either, they absorb a photon, use most of it to create thermal energy and re-emit very little. Photons are not watts, you can add watts together, Photons are a wavelength of radiation, they do not mix, combine, or add together to increase the energy. Each photon is predetermined (by its wavelength). The presumption that CO2 is capable of absorbing the re-emitted radiation is also a consideration. An increase in the molecular density of short wave absorbing molecules will reduce the amount of solar radiation reaching the surface and this could, don’t know the tipping point, cool the planet. To support the idea that Global Warming is caused by CO2 a comparison of Total solar irradiance and earth’s temperature was done and this study found little or no correlation, therefore something in the troposphere is causing the temperature of the earth to increase, believing that the surface is the same it must be something atmospheric and CO2, because it can absorb short and long wave was a good candidate. Apart from Nitrogen, oxygen and water vapour CO2 is the next most abundant molecule in the atmosphere. Nitrogen and oxygen do not absorb radiation, water vapour does in short and long wave and has broad absorption spectra but it’s water, so CO2 was next on the list. I do not dispute that CO2 and other molecules in the atmosphere are an essential part of how our earth stays warm and cools I just don’t believe it is all because of CO2. The earth may be warming, the jury is out at the moment. I have been looking at graphs trying to compare CISSTemp, HADCRUT, UAH AND RSS temperature data and found it a bit confusing. There are three camps, CISSTEMP, HADCRUT and UAH + RSS and the figures are different, the UAH and RSS graphs show a decrease, so who do I believe? Still working on this one. I’m also looking at the variable absorption and reflective abilities of surfaces. We humans keep putting up concrete buildings and paving our roads with black asphalt and this has to have an effect. I’m more inclined to believe urbanization, paving the pasture, is our real problem not CO2. The earth has been hotter in the past and its been a lot colder in the past and I don’t think that will change (unless we paint everything black). H2O is the biggest player in the Greenhouse effect and CO2 is minor by comparison. You will probably start quoting Scientists, Papers and numbers to prove I’m wrong and that’s okay (even though I know I’m not) but I’d rather read your reasons and your own ideas why you believe CO2 is evil. You know plants and CO2 have a great thing going, increase CO2 plant grows bigger, plant grows bigger needs more CO2. If CO2 is the problem why don’t we just plant more trees and use that rising sea water level (desalination first of course) to water them. I live in Australia and to test the difference between the absorption and reflective ability of asphalt compared to grass, you just have to go outside on a hot summers day and try to stand barefoot on the road, you can’t, but I can stand on the grass right next to it. No not scientific but it answers my question.
Assassin Actual
September 13, 2011 at 19:17 (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Your argument would make sense if not for your ill-informed knowledge of basic chemistry. CO2 does not “trap” energy in the global system like I believe you think it does. CO2 does not absorb all the excess energy inside the molecule like you infer, because it re radiates that energy in other directions instantaneously. Your argument would be like the greenhouse working by all the heat being trapped inside the glass panes and not by radiating outward and omits the effects of energy on other materials and gasses in that system. CO2 acts as a reflective barrier preventing energy from radiating out into space.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
You mayhap want to grab a chemistry book and do some more background reading.
What is more distressing is that you stated yourself that you have fallen victim to the very human truthiness vs truth dilemma. You know you are right because you want to be right, yet your whole post lacks some fundamental knowledge of how sub atomic and molecular systems actually interact. If you want to make an impact with a response filled with scientific lingo that is hard for someone with a non-technical background to understand, it is a little disingenuous to not include sources and references. More disturbingly you hedge your argument against anyone else tossing research back in response.
However, I do have a technical degree focusing on geographic information systems and optical physics when peering through our atmosphere. If you spend 100s of hours correcting imagery for optical defects caused by the greenhouse effect, you tend to know the chemistry after a while.
So I declare BULLSHIT on your above post and challenge you to provide documentation or citations to back up your claim.
Ask why is it so?
September 16, 2011 at 03:48 (UTC -4) Link to this comment
You’re right its all bullshit, the earth is warming and CO2 is the cause. I’m new at this blog stuff and I’m sorry I bothered you and I won’t bother you again.
100 virgin brazilian silky straight hair
December 16, 2012 at 17:07 (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I’ve saved your site and I’m adding your RSS feeds to my Google account*~* http://srhserhwe.blogspot.com/2012/12/best-malaysian-full-lace-wigs.html
What I’m Reading Friday, September 9, 2011 | Rationally Thinking Out Loud
September 10, 2011 at 01:52 (UTC -4) Link to this comment
[...] The Right Way of Challenging Man Made Global Warming | Assassin Actual—”…Not wanting to let the other side get the credit if the opposition happened to be correct, Mr. Dressler took their idea and put it to the scientific test…and it failed. Through meticulous observation of the weather patterns of the Pacific, his data led to the conclusion that, while cloud formation and trends may act to amplify the greenhouse effect, clouds cannot be the root cause of global climate change. “The bottom line is that clouds have not replaced humans as the cause of the recent warming the Earth is experiencing,” Dessler says.” [...]