"psychological truth"?

Judith Curry considers the psychology of those promoting such truths with this comment.

'Somebody needs to research the sociology and psychology of people that insist that anyone that does not accept AGW as a rationale for massive CO2 mitigation efforts is a “denier.” The complexity of skepticism (ranging from multiple aspects of the science, to the impacts that can be attributable to AGW and whether or not they are “dangerous” to the policies proposed for CO2 mitigation) seems to be completely missed by all of the “scholars” writing articles about ‘deniers’. The argued point “A sizeable (and growing) proportion of the public in Western democracies deny the existence of anthropogenic climate change” should provide a clue to these people that something is fundamentally wrong with their thinking."

Ouch!

I note that there are 3 comments in response to Marc Hendrickx which have been removed by the moderator.

While I didn't see them, l assume that the reason they were removed was because they contained personal comments or bad language. But might I also suggest to the moderators that the time has come to start removing the comments from Marc as well. We should have open debate, but Marc's predictable diatribes against climate change are becoming tiresome.

The post above contributes nothing to the discussion, and is just the usual 'its all a lie'. Perhaps if Marc was to contribue something of substance we might all start taking him a little more seriously and there would be less posts which require moderation.

When you assume something Mike you are usually incorrect. The three comments removed were friendly and respectful banter amongst friends, and off topic.

For consistency the MODS should also remove yours and mine. But, no doubt prejudice will get in the way of that.

Thank you Markus.

Perhaps that was an error in the orginal article. The author should have used "...the scientific truth that humanity is a major driver of these events...", rather than using "psychological truth", for that is what it is.

I would like to know the source of your quote from JC, so I can see it in context. But if the quote itself is stand alone, then I suggest she either misunderstands the issue, or is deliberately mistating it.

People who do not accept AGW as a rationale for massive CO2 mitigation efforts are not deniers - people who do not accept the scientific evidence for AGW are deniers. Whether or not AGW requires 'massive CO2 mitigation effort' is a separate issue.

This is especially so when virtually none of those people denying AGW have any real scientific knowledge of the issue, and anyone who does have such knowledge accepts it. From a scientific perspective, it matters not one iota that "..a sizeable (and growing) proportion of the public in Western democracies deny the existence of anthropogenic climate change..". AGW is not tinkerbell, and will not cease to exist if people stop believing in it.

It does matter from a poltical perspective though, and it matter for the future of human civilisation and for the future of the numerous species which will be affected by our activities.

Hi Mike,

Without going into the actual physics of gas laws and downwelling LWR, of which less than 1% of readers here would understand, the scientific method has not yet been satisfied for the sensitivity of CO2 on climate to the extent that it is a climate driver.

It is not enough to suggest that the science evidence thus far meets the rigor of the scientific method without the empirical data needed to substantiate it as a fact. Simulations are not accepted as real world evidence.

"when virtually none of those people denying AGW have any real scientific knowledge of the issue, and anyone who does have such knowledge accepts it."

You know Mike, I have rarely seen actual physics in this publication or in papers produced by Australians that can in any way suggest that your predicate has any bearing in logic.

Professor Judith Curry's article on "Promoting pro-environmental action in climate change deniers" which is unfortunately an University of Queensland accepted paper in the journal Nature Climate Change, follows;

http://judithcurry.com/2012/06/19/analyzing-people-who-talk-about-agw-denialism/

Glad to know that by your definition I am not a "denier" as I fully accept human influence on the climate. The issue which you seem to forget is the degree, the impact and how to manage it. The later three remain open to considerable debate.

By the way the C in CAGW stands for "catastrophic".

As to your calls for censoring my comments. If you want to have a debate or a conversation then there needs to be another side, unless you are into meaningless head nodding.

Well Mark, its good to know that you accept that humans are influencing the climate, which appears to be at odds with many of your comments in the past.
And you are correct - the degree, effects and mitigation strategies are open to debate. I don't think that anyone with any credibility would disagree with that position.
Of course, if you really believe that, then you should be consistent and accept that catastrophic change is also a possibility. If you doubt that, perhaps you should act accordingly and provide evidence and rational debate for your position, which appears to be that, while humans are influencing the climate, the degree and effects will be minimal. Is that a fair statement?
Of course, that would require you to firstly produce evidence on climate sensitivity and what the likely changes will be. Then to relate those climatic changes to ecosystem and human civilisation impacts. Then to do a cost benefit analysis of the costs of both action and no action, vs the benefits of action and no action. In doing so, could you also explain why you are not convinced by the evidence which has been accepted by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community. Why have they got it wrong (in your opinion)?.
Perhaps then we - and others - can have a rational debate on the subject.
Oh - and my suggestion re censoring was in relation to meaningless comments based which equate to nothing more than a diatribe. I - and everyone else - would welcome reasoned comments supported by evidence.

Evidence Mike, which comments?
My position has been consistent on this over the last 5 years.

Recent paper by Schmitter pretty much puts paid to the catastrophic side of the argument.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/334/6061/1385.short

Marc - Could you define what you mean by "catastrophic".

markus,
You need to talk to fellow denier Marc Hendrickx so you are both singing from the same hymn sheet.

He kindly supplied this link to Schmittner et al below. This is one of many scientific papers on climate sensitivity. Marc seems to think its a beauty.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/334/6061/1385.short

"Schmittner et al. believe they have found low probabilities for both very high and very low equilibrium climate sensitivities, and their best-fit model sensitivity is 2.4°C for doubled CO2"

But Schmittner et al's calculations are based on difference in temps between the Last Glacial Maximum and today as 2.6°C.

"If Schmittner et al. are right about climate sensitivity and LGM temperature change, then if we continue with business-as-usual GHG emissions, we will match the amount of warming between glacial and interglacial periods within roughly the next century. Some of the differences between glacial and interglacial periods include 120 meter sea level rise, and a completely different global landscape - very dramatic climate changes.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/schmittner-finds-low-climate-sensitivity.htm

Mike (The sky has fallen, kookite ) Hansen. Again what am I guilty of denying?

Which song sheet? Seems only the Kookites feel they need to sing the same tune. I'm happy to have a multitude of opinions expressed.

The look on your face when you work out that John Cook is not the messiah.

Er, Mike,

'Maximum with climate model simulations, we estimate a lower median (2.3 K) and reduced uncertainty (1.7 to 2.6 K as the 66% probability range, which can be widened using alternate assumptions or data subsets). Assuming that paleoclimatic constraints apply to the future, as predicted by our model, these results imply a lower probability of imminent extreme climatic change than previously thought.'

Two points, actually 3;

1 paleoclimatic
2.

Q. Could you define what you mean by "catastrophic"

A. Look over there a wombat.

Er, Mike,

'Maximum with climate model simulations, we estimate a lower median (2.3 K) and reduced uncertainty (1.7 to 2.6 K as the 66% probability range, which can be widened using alternate assumptions or data subsets). Assuming that paleoclimatic constraints apply to the future, as predicted by our model, these results imply a lower probability of imminent extreme climatic change than previously thought.'
Two points, actually 3;

1. Paleoclimatic
2. Models
3. Sceptical Science

Below is some empirical evidence and rather than some model extracted from questionable paleoclimatic reconstructions and simulated modelling. Fantasists like to look at pictures so check out Figure 2.

http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/agw-an-alternate-look-part-1-details-c.pdf

Basically, the assumption by the IPCC that all the absorbed Infra Red radiation (IR) is directly thermalised is wrong.

At >200 ppmV [CO2] there is no increase in absorptivity/emissivity [assuming Kirchhoff's law at equilibrium]. These data are routinely used in furnace design and are correct in that they work.

The experiments were done using a heated/cooled container and there are good theoretical reasons that the real process is absorption then pseudo-scattering to give indirect thermalisation at the walls of the container, so the real process is the effectiveness of the CO2 at scattering energy to the container walls and vice versa.
There is no direct process for transfer of absorbed quanta in GHG molecules by multiple collisions to symmetrical N2 and O2 as apparently claimed in climate science.

Molecules have no memory so Local Thermal Equilibrium (LTE) is restored once an already excited molecule emits the same quantum: no direct thermalisation. This is kinetic selection in that the energy is transferred by multiple pseudo-scattering events as if the GHGs were a heat transfer medium, only stopping when the quantum is absorbed/thermalised at a heterogeneous interface, or heads off to space.

In the atmosphere, the ‘container’ is clouds and bare aerosols giving the impression of direct thermalisation. Nahle has shown theoretically from partial molar specific heat data The ultimate arbiter is the experimental data of Hottel and Leckner. Clouds are grey bodies because the absorbed band specific IR is thermalised over many more wavelengths, so again making a very different heat transfer problem than the IPCC claims. Thus cloud under surfaces will emit specular IR in the atmospheric window back to the Earth whose energy will have originally been partly CO2 specific. On the contrary, there will also be transfer in the other direction so it probably cancels out.

As the atmosphere thins and has fewer clouds, the IR emitted by clouds and warm air will preferentially escape to space because as it is pseudo-scattered, it is selected to escape UP. This means that as height increases, the emissivity DOWN tends to zero.

At Bottom of Atmosphere (BOA), the boundary condition is that only the net IR UP is important in that the rest of the heat transfer is conduction and convection, the total being 160 W/m^2. In effect the emissivity of the earth’s surface is <<1 and radiative flux only exceeds [conductive plus convective] flux at ~100 °C [see McAdams’ Heat Transfer for example. Thus the IPCC claim that there is a radiative equilibrium between a 'blackbody' surface in equilibrium and 'blackbody' air is completely wrong.

At TOA there is zero DOWN IR. At BOA, UP IR = 63 W/m^ and it is claimed that 40W/m^2 of this goes through the atmospheric window. Let’s assume this is correct. The net result is that the climate models artificially increase heat in the system by a factor of [240+333-240]/240 = 1.39 and the IR bit by a factor of [23 + (333-240)]/23 = 5.04. This shifts the calculation to IR dominance whereas the real atmosphere is dominated by convective processes; thus the incorrect modelling is the origin of the unphysical positive feedback.
In summary: thermalisation is indirect and because the scattering of IR from the Earth’s surface asymptotes at ~200 ppmv [CO2], there can be no net CO2-(A)GW in the post ice age World.

It's easy to trump somebody who relies on the Sceptical Science Bible. As to being a 'Denier', social science suggests it is becoming fashionable, so I expect many want to be's, (stop it I'm not saying you are one) will also jump on the bandwagon of Enlightenment.

Thanks for the skepticalscience link Mike.

So basically whichever study you look at - the temperature increase that results from a doubling of CO2 is approaching the temperature difference between now and the last LGM. Have I got that right?

And the difference in sea levels between the last LGM and now is about 120M?

Sounds pretty catastrophic to me. Not a risk worth taking if it can be avoided.

markus.

You have linked to Roger Tallbloke's blog. He is a crank who believes that the famous Michelson-Morley experiment which lead to the theory of relativity was faked. He believes in an aether. He has it in for Einstein as well.

http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/hall-of-fame/

You lost me there.