Do most global warming deniers have a disdain for physics?

Question

Obviously most AGW deniers have little to no understanding of physics, or they wouldn't be deniers.

But some deniers frequenting this site have made some very disparaging remarks about physics and physicists. One self-proclaimed geologist once said that 'radiative forcing is a term made up by physicists to trick people into believing AGW'. His twin brother and self-proclaimed chemist recently claimed "The radiative forcing argument is just a straw man fallacy that assumes that computer models or physics has any real world evidence to back it up....Physics is ideal for promoting false and bogus ideas."
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100303164149AAcBUWi&r=w#P5pVJTC.J0fPJRNtDEO8

This disdain for physics puzzles me. I've always loved physics because it explains how everything works. Most of our technological advancements have been based on our understanding of physics.

So it makes me wonder, is the disdain for physics shown by these individuals common among global warming deniers?

Answer 1

Yes, I think they do, but that shouldn't come as a surprise because I think people in general do. When people would ask me what my major was, and I tell them physics, the reaction is usually something like this "Oh...I could have taken that, but I took botany instead."



There is a denier (All Black) who said that he was a physics major, so it may not be true that all of the deniers haved a disdain for it. The thing is that physics is the key to understanding any of the Earth sciences at an advanced level. Without an understanding of physics you will never fully comprehend the physical processes underlying meteorology, climate, oceanography or geology. When people in here like the Bigfoot twins trash the physics-based models, they do so without a clue of what the models actually are or the data the goes into them. They also don't realize that modelling is used every single day in atmospheric science with great success.



EDIT: Another answer says



"This is clearly a chaotic system with many more factors than we could possibly account for. We have neither the technology nor the measurement equipment in place to account for all the necessary data to make accurate predictions."



An answer like this may as well be



"The Gods control the climate and we mortals commit the crime of hubris if we even attempt to understand it."



It is pure garbage. There is nothing magic in the Earth's physical system. The progress of atmospheric models in numerical weather prediction in the last 20 years is phenomenal. Of course there are limitations, both in computing power and observation, there always will be. Models are always models, not the real thing. That doesn't mean they don't get better and better and approximating and forecasting the real thing.



Despite what deniers say, magic does not control the climate, it is governed by known laws, which we can use to build models and forecast.



Another EDIT: Bravozulu, it is not Hawking's idea, what you are talking about is called the "Many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics" and it was put forth over 50 years ago by Hugh Everett. There is also the Copenhagen interpretation put for the Neils Bohr and company about 80 years ago. They more correspond to different philosophies than different science, since they are indistinguishable experimentally.



Exhale: no, we don't understand everything, but we understand all the important physics. Yes, models vary in how they treat clouds, because clouds are still subgrid processes in most models....but not for long, there are already hybrid models, that resolve clouds in some aspects and parameterize them in other. Either way the models are getting better and better. There is less and less room for your magic fairy dust in our understanding of the atmosphere.



Chaos theory, by the way, is used every day in real forecasts of the atmosphere--not surprising, since much of the impetus for it came from an atmospheric modeller, Edward Lorenz.



A Final EDIT: For someone that purports to have advanced training in statistics, you sure don't talk like you know anything about it. The chaos in the atmospheric models make it impossible to predict the weather beyond a few weeks, but that is not what climate prediction is doing--it is forming statistical averages based on ensembles of model runs. We don't have to know exactly when a rainstorm will hit 100 years from now, we just need to know how often they occur in a statistical sense. The atmosphere has some characteristics of a chaotic system, primarily due to insufficient knowledge of initial conditions, but it still must follow the laws of physics, and ensemble modelling can indicate how much variation can be expected due to the indeterminacy of the initial conditions.

Answer 2

Thumbs up to pegminer, especially for his back and forth with jayd and bravo. I'm not convinced that the climate is chaotic, especially on multidecadal to centurial timeframes. I've asked this question of deniers before, but can anyone tell me the mathematical definition of chaos, and how climate specifically fits this definition? Phrases like "It's unpredictable" don't work, obviously.



To answer the question, yes, many deniers have a disdain for physics. Perhaps it isn't necessarily conscious, but their unwillingness to learn the physics while continuing to argue the physics of climate tells us much. Then there are others like bravo that find it "boring" (!!), and others still that find it intimidating. A little physics education would dispel 40% of the questions here on Y!A GW; statistics and an actual understanding of *climate* would end another 50%, leaving the remaining 10% legitimate questions.

----------

Jayd,

Butterfly effect is about weather, not climate. Chaos in the weather does not guarantee chaos in the climate, unfortunately.



"The idea that the climate is not a chaotic system is not the generally accepted viewpoint of the scientists."



Could you point me to some references on this? Because this isn't true at all. Few scientists argue that the climate is a purely chaotic system, and in particular, not on relevant timescales to humans (multidecadal to centurial).



All you've done is provide a partial definition of chaos, and haven't explained at all how the climate fits this definition.

Answer 3

That's hard to say-it is difficult to quantify things like 'disdain' compared to ignorance. And strictly speaking, I hope everyone will understand I am not universally using the word ignorance in a pejorative sense. I just think a lot of people who fall into the category of 'deniers' simply have not had the benefit of enough education on the fundamentals to make a reasoned judgement on what is going on with climate change or why. Knowledge of or a lack of same about physics is simply one part of forming an opinion, but that doesn't necessarily mean disdain.



EDIT: I have to add that here's a lot of stuff I obviously don't know and I don't make a secret of that here or pose as an expert, I'm here to study the topic...I think the absolutism that is sometimes in strong evidence in many of the opinions is more disdainful of the facts. But again, that may be rooted in ignorance of another sort. I may be ignorant about physics, but not in the another sort of way.

Answer 4

I am more than a self proclaimed chemist. I am actually a chemist with a very strong background in biology and physics. My brother is an engineer and a geologist by the way. Geological Engineer is much higher on the academic scale than simple geologist but he has been working as a geologist. I must admit that I do find physics to be the most boring field and the one that allows completely outlandish arguents to be presented.



It isn't a disdain for physics. It is the realization that mathematics is what defines physics. It can be easily manipulated by just plugging in bogus data into the computer models or formulas that aren't necessarily valid representations of the real world. The reason that radiative forcing argument is a straw man argument is that it assumes that radiative forcing is something that can be predicted by computer models. I understand that the earth's climate is governed by radiative forcing. You just can't demonstrate in the REAL world that radiative forcing increases as CO2 increases. Implied in his/your argument was that there is some prediction of radiative forcing from CO2 levels based on bogus computer models. This isn't a world where algore's third grade level of science applies not that they are that incompetent with their computer models. There is no layer that is getting thicker and trapping more heat as CO2 rises. That completely infantile explanation is a total distortion of reality. The actual mechanism of warming and radiation has more to do other effects than it does on just the concentration of CO2 which is a very poor greenhouse gas. It isn't predicted accurately by computer models. Otherwise they might actually occasionally work in the real world at predicting. You test theories in science. When they fail, they are disproved. Science moves on. Pseudoscientific alarmists claim the science is settled.



One of the theories in physics that probably has nothing to do with reality but it shows how you can manipulate math to redefine reality in the most outlandish means conceivable. That is considered good physics. Professor Hawking believes that there are an infinite number of universes where everything that possibly could have happened did. He bases that on the uncertainty in quantum mechanics. It becomes completely absurd when you examine his idea. There is a new universe made for every quantum event in all the molecules in the over ten trillion billion stars that exit. Every second an astronomical number of new universe comes into existence in his mind. That is just one of the more obvious examples of how physics doesn't have to have anything to do with reality if you can represent it mathematically.

Answer 5

A disdain for physics, perhaps. Certainly I regard things like the absorption and radiation of energy from a CO2 molecule as being hard physics. Not that I personally understand the derivation of the numbers involved but I am used to being able to rely on the results of the calculations/experiments of the scientists in the field of mathematical physics. It seems inconceivable to me that scrutiny of such 'hard' science would have revealed any errors long ago in the basis for climate change theory and I see no sign of 'heavy weight' scientists pitching in at this point. Proving that we did not properly understand the behaviour of the CO2 molecule would I suspect have far reaching ramifications beyond climate change and would I suspect be well worthy of a Nobel Prize in physics. I don't see the ramblings of the contributer you mention as being of particular significance.

Answer 6

What is the coefficient that physicists use this week for the relationship of volume CO2 to heating of the atmosphere? It has changed so widely and so often, nobody actually knows what it is. And do I disdain physics because of this little detail? No. I admire the scientists for their practice in experimental analysis. They are doctors trying to find out what makes things work. But any practicing scientist will tell you that results vary. Conditions change. It is an especially great honor to have your experiment duplicated and the results verified. What happened to the IPCC prognosis? Did their experiments get duplicated? Were their physics verified? Or did they block investigation and stonewall verification? Now that's what I disdain.

Answer 7

Climate and global warming is inter-related to each other. As when the global warming increases it also affects the climate. Change in the climate is only due to the global warming. global warming is actually caused by the chlorofluorocarbon coming from our household works and specially from the the refrigerators. Due to the global warming the black hole increases and the ozone layer decreases. If the ozone layer decreases rapidly then it can cause various inflammation in our health and the surrounding. Then the harmful radiations of the sun reaches to the earth and cause many pollutions and give rise to many new diseases and skin cancer. The producing of the co2 gases is very harmful. it also leads to the depletion of the ozone layer as it is one of the greenhouse gases. Hope this answer will help u to write ur essay. U can also elaborate these points.

Answer 8

I’m actually with you on this Dana. I love physics too and actually took it at A-Level (that’s up to 18 years old) along with Pure Maths and Applied Maths. Sadly, that was over 20 years ago, so I’ve long since forgotten what I learned, as I chose a career (I.T.) that didn’t require it, but I remember loving it. I loved that way it all “just worked”. If a teacher set us a question, we’d all get the same result – and if we didn’t, we’d done something wrong and that mistake could be found and corrected.



It’s not like all these arty subjects where I’d get told to write an essay on... whatever, and then get 6 out of 10. In physics, if the answer was 42, it didn’t matter how nicely I’d written the answer, it was 42 – whether it was scribbled, or written beautifully, it was still 42.



For me science has always been a beacon of truth, honesty and certainty in the world. And this, of course, is why I’m a Global Warming Sceptic. It’s the dishonesty!



I take it you’ve read what the Institute of Physics had to say regarding Climategate?



And this is where you and I differ on the issue of Global Warming, Dana. I read what the Institute of Physics had to say and I agreed with it wholeheartedly. You, I would image, disagree with it and continue to support and defend the behaviour of Phil Jones and co.



Why?

Answer 9

It is not a disdain for physics, it is a disdain for the turn that physics has taken. IT use to be that everything within physics could be shown experimentally . This has lead to a lot of discoveries and a pretty good understanding of the forces at play on our planet. Relatively recently, physicists have been looking at rather larger problems that are not easy to pin down. One such is the Big bang theory. This has lead to postulations like black matter, multiple universes, etc. While these are fine ideas, they have, as of yet, defied experimentation. Because so much of what physicists do now, does not fall into the catagory of something that can be shown experimentally, they have watered down what they believe they need to call things "proven". Now it becomes a matter of having enough circumstantial evidence as opposed to having concrete evidence.



The modeling of the climate is a perfect example. This is clearly a chaotic system with many more factors than we could possibly account for. We have neither the technology nor the measurement equipment in place to account for all the necessary data to make accurate predictions. While I can respect the mdoels as guesses, and can respect the physicist for making guesses that they can confirm later with observational data, this is not fact. They are currently stating their guesses as if they were proven facts. Further, when the data does not show the large increases in temps, but rather shows that the past 15 years have shown no statistically significant warming, they have not come back and said our models might be a little off. Instead they press ahead as if their guestimodels are indeed the same as experimentally proven theories and laws. The physicists of the past, like Newton, would not be so careless with their claims of certainty.



As for physics, I love both physics and math, and have always excelled at both subjects.



Pegminer,

That could be one of your dumbest retorts. Are you truly trying to tell me that we understand all of the factors that influence the climate, when the scientists say we do not. Are you trying to tell me we have a good handle on climate modeling when we do not even know if clouds cause a negative or positive feedback.



Thats the point. You can show AGW is happening, but when asked to justify your crazy 4-7 degree predictions, YOU GOT NOTHING. Just some dumb ad-hominim attacks.



Pixie dust? I thought that was what you sprinkled to pretend like you can use less than 100 years worth of data to predict out 100 years for a chaotic system. If you truly understand that the climate is chaotic, then you would know that prediction out 100 years are completely worthless. You AGWers sure have more faith in your scientists than I do. I tend to think they are human, while you seem to think they are demigods capable of knowing everything. IF however you want to change my beliefs in your comp models, perhaps your comp models could actually predict something right for a change. Pretty sure that 15 years of no statistically significant change is not the same as exponential growth. Perhaps I am asking too much to actually follow the scientific method.





Jim,

Are you really questioning my ability in statistics again? Do you really not remember me schooling you, Dana, and Paul in statistics? After all this time you are trying that crap again? Seriously pathetic!!! And it matters not how much you trust your models, all of them are prone to error. All models are wrong, some are useful. The usefulness of the model is determined by its ability to predict future events, not how big the program or the computer is, nor how many "smart scientists" you have making the models. The predictions of the models have not proved useful yet. They may indeed be correct, but you have nothing to demonstrate that they are. I have worked with some of the smartest scientists who have formulated drugs to combat cancer. Not one of those smart people thought that their drug did not work. NOT ONE! Guess what though, some of those drugs did not work. The proof is in the pudding. Your theories might all make sense, they might all be logically sound, but nothing works like the scientific method. If your modeling has yet to show accuracy and precision, than it is still no more useful than a guess until it does. Your representation of these models as proven facts is just absolutely absurd and has no place in science. For someone who claims an advanced degree in science, you sure don't reason like a scientist.



Further Jim, Yes chaos models are used, but that is why they are only accurate for the period of a week, no longer. You let me know when you see a forecast for a year out, I'd love to see that weatherman, and I guarantee, if he was correct, he would become famous.



For Dana comment, the peewee Herman retort of "I know you are but what am I", is appropriate, since it is as childish and noninciteful as his comment.



As for Bob's comments,

Chaotic systems are dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions. Whether you think that the climate is chaotic or not, the butterfly effect talks of the efect of a chaotic system and uses the climate as an example. The idea that the climate is not a chaotic system is not the generally accepted viewpoint of the scientists. For a group of people who constantly talk about "consensus" this is really not a good argument.

Answer 10

Not necessarily. Global warming deniers just do think our Sun will eviscarate us because of the condition of the ozone layer. They are just straight-up skeptics. Some of these people oppose phychics, and others do not. Its that simple.

Answer 11

Dana, I can't speak for 'Deniers' ( I still can't figure out why you ..... a supposedly educated person.... would use a term that is commonly used in the context of the Holocaust.... quite odd).... but anyway..... Skeptics hold all scientists in high regard.... even Physicists.



The problem that we have from time to time.... especially of late..... are those Physicists who attempt to bastardize their professions for reasons of personal gain/agenda.



If scientists stick to an honest/credible practice of their respective professions, then more power to them.

Answer 12

Most as you call them 'deniers' have no disdain for physics. They have a disdain for filtered comments and name-calling. So, the answer to that is no.

Answer 13

A disdain for all science. The deniers camp is religious.

Answer 14

No, way; they love psychics.