I think this is a very good and important question to answer and grasp as it relates to this debate, as it will provide more light than… I think you know where this could go!
The reason why I say this is that in the rather “uncouth” world of media spin, what the “skeptic” position actually means, and how it is framed, I find, is generally lost in the ideological battle to paint “those” scientists as flat-earther, deniers… neo-creationists, even!
There is almost a mythical perception of carbon that is axiomatically evil… Try telling that to the plant life outside! The result is that there seems to be an understanding that there is a direct cause and effect relationship between emitting CO2 and the raising of temperatures, the melting of ice caps, and the killing of the Polar Pops… Bears!
In my own personal reading>research into this area, what I found was missing was a simple framework-type explanation of how this theory works in… theory>what-will-be-practice! What I needed was essentially a introductory framework of how this theory works, where there is disagreement and why. However, all one tends to hear is either side making noise, and without any explanation or a conceptual grid with which to place these statements in, the absurdity grows.
The result of all this as it relates to the “skeptics,” is that they are presented as those who do not believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming… period, or more to the point, they do not believe that carbon has that “warming” capability. Joe Public hears this, and wonders how there could be such diversity of opinion, when it sounds so black and white, which encourages him to find another reason… oil money!
By way of disclaimer: I have not been payed off by anyone for this work where I will quote someone else as my authority, although I do come cheap… ask the wife!
Do skeptics deny that Carbon has heat trapping capacities?
Well, this is not really the case. While it is unwise to be monolithic on this issue, what these skeptics affirm is that they do not view the result of this capability as leading to catastrophic consequences.
I will try and illuminate this for you reader from a person who really is in the know, and who has the qualifications to prove it… unlike this blogging behemoth!
Let me quote a little from a text of his that I have, Climate Confusion, by Dr. Roy Spencer, and just before you discredit him as some kook, here is a little about the man…
Roy W. Spencer is a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, where he directs a variety of climate research projects. He received his Ph.D. in Meteorology from the University of Wisconsin in 1981, and was formerly a senior scientist for Climate Studies at NASA. Dr Spencer also serves as the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer for EOS (AMSR-E) flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He is the co-developer of the original satellite method for precise monitoring of global temperatures from Earth-orbiting satellites…
Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Studies… at MIT!… a scientist even the warmers respect, in a promo on the back of the book, says this in part…
Climate Confusion is the best book length treatment of the global warming science that is available to the literate citizen…
If you are still skeptical… “Ba-dom ching”… check your presuppositions again, because they are smelling you out!
Here is Dr. Spencer…
Now let’s get beyond all of this hand waving, and talk about real global warming numbers. It has been calculated (again, theoretically) that if there were no other changes in the atmosphere, a doubling of the carbon dioxide content would result in only 1 [degree] Fahrenheit surface warming. This “direct” warming effect is relatively small, and would likely be easily adapted to by both humanity and by nature.
Pay close content to the word “direct” as it is important to what he is saying. However, it does sound like Dr. Spencer is affirming something of a warming hypothesis. However, there is more to this picture, and it is about to get luminous…
As we shall see, though, most global warming estimates are much larger than this: from 4 to 10 [degrees] Fahrenheit warming by 2100. This is because it is widely believed that weather processes will amplify the relatively small amount of CO2 only warming.
The last line is the kicker!
Here is how Dr. Spencer describes this important point…
The big question is , will it [the climate system] respond in ways that amplify the small amount of direct warming from the extra carbon dioxide, or dampen it? Those responses are called feedbacks: changes in clouds, precipitation, and anything else that alters the direct warming effect of the extra carbon dioxide in such a way that makes the warming effect stronger or weaker.
There is very little scientific disagreement over the fact that the extra carbon dioxide mankind is emitting is causing a slight enhancement of the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect. What is disputed is how the atmosphere will respond in terms of feedbacks [emphasis mine].
This last paragraph is so important in this debate that you may just want to read it again, grasp what he is saying, and store it away for future reference.
Therefore, the scientific debate between those referred to as “warmers” and “deniers” has its nexus in how the climate system will respond to the small amount of “direct” warming that both sides generally agree is capable as a result of the extra Co2 that is being, and will be emitted into the atmosphere.
What does it really mean when a “Skeptical” Scientist disputes the Global Warming Thesis?
It means that these “skeptics” believe that the feedbacks (Re: Spencer ~ changes in clouds, precipitation, and anything else that alters the direct warming effect of the extra carbon dioxide), resulting from this generally agreed upon by both groups 1 degree Fahrenheit of direct warming, will NOT result in any further “substantial” amplification or impact by way of increasing warming (temperatures) on the global climate. While, on the other hand, “warmers” believe the opposite!
Simple?
If I was to put my skeptical hat on, I do wonder if “warmers” do not want to bring this type of clarity to this issue (assuming you agree of course), as it takes much more of the “heat” out of the debate, makes the position represented by the term “deniers” sound less incredulous, which should lead to a greater promotion of knowledgeable-based open discourse, rigorous scientific debate about how these feedbacks will actually outwork themselves in practice, and a general sense that there is a search for truth!
What is interesting as it relates to the debate about Feedbacks, is that the issue of the impact on clouds is used by warmers as a strong affirmation for their case. However, over the past 12-18 months, Dr. Roy Spencer has completed a study that challenges much of this perspective. You can find the paper HERE!… and as it relates to the “Climategate” emails, the area of the impact of clouds was a subject that one of the protagonists admitted that they did not know much about. Is this a problem we should be thinking about?
I trust that this provides some initial help in putting some framework in place for those who just hear noise when this subject warms up. Now you can play it cool, as you have had some help on the way!
From one half-wit to another!
Until Next Time
I am Jonny King
Postscript: Dr Roy Spencer has also put some helpful Q & A on his site HERE, and HERE, with a small quote from this second piece to underscore the point of this post…
10. But we keep emitting carbon dioxide, which we know is a greenhouse gas! Yes, I agree. But the direct warming effect of moré CO2 is agreed by all to be small…and I predict that when we better understand how clouds change in response to that small warming influence, the net warming in response to more CO2 will be smaller still. This is the “feedback” issue, which determines “climate sensitivity”, the area of research I spend most of my time on. I and a minority of other scientists believe the net feedbacks in the climate system are negative, probably driven by negative cloud feedback. In contrast, all twenty-something IPCC climate models now exhibit positive cloud feedback.
Recent Comments