r/climatechange • u/srmcmahon • 4d ago
"retired plant scientist" claim
This was in a letter to the editor locally:
"There is no real evidence that global warming is due to atmospheric CO2. Controlled experiments indicate that the addition of CO2 in air up to 10,000 ppm have little or no effect on warming under atmospheric conditions."
Entire letter is here: https://www.inforum.com/opinion/letters/letter-co2-and-global-warming
I was going to write a comment. I think he might be talking about experiments where they added CO2 to experimental plant plots (but don't remember the mechanics). "Under atmospheric conditions"--means exactly what?
Can you help me out here? I have not figured out how to phrase a search that brings me to what he is referring to.
23
u/Potato_Octopi 4d ago
It's an opinion piece. If he has real information he can present it.
CO2 is shown to be a greenhouse gas in lab tests. What he thinks contradicts that isn't really presented.
He says 50% of hearing is from things like urban heat island.. but measurements adjust for that. I'm guessing his "research" has been done by reading "skeptic" blogs.
12
7
u/Infamous_Employer_85 4d ago
He says 50% of hearing is from things like urban heat island
Which has been debunked since excluding all urban areas shows the same increase in mean global temperature.
32
u/mesosuchus 4d ago edited 4d ago
Weird. Google Scholar doesn't seem to be able to find a "Greg Fox" who has published in any botanical or related field. How "surprising". As for your question, I don't think he is aware of the origin of his statement. He seems to be conflating growth chamber and flux studies with the physics behind why CO2, CH4 etc are greenhouse gases? His whole "opinion" is problematic and I am not sure it is worth spending time debunking his gross misunderstanding of botany, paleoecology, climatology, and atmospheric science.
7
u/twotime 4d ago
Hah, "plant scientist" is a fairly strong hint of something not far removed from a "gardener" or "arborist". So lack of publications is totally expected..
Most scientists stating their professional opinion would also state their degree "PhD in Zoology" or something like this. "Scientist" is far too generic in this context.
And of course even a real PhD in biology/botany/zoology would still not be even remotely close to having qualifications to judge reality of AGW.
Long story short: his opinion is about as valuable as opinion of the nearest bus driver as far as I'm concerned.
4
u/mesosuchus 4d ago
Having a PhD in biology or botany absolutely can make you eminently qualified to discuss anthropogenic climate change. It depends on you field of expertise (e.g., paleoecology, landscape ecology, plant physiology etc)
Fun fact: "Plant science" is often a School of Agriculture major depending on school. PLant biology or botany are the majors you'd expect from a School of Liberal Arts & Science.
4
u/twotime 4d ago edited 4d ago
botany absolutely can make you eminently qualified to discuss anthropogenic climate change
I agree: impact/evidence of global warming on plant communities could indeed overlap significantly with the science of AGW ..
But that's still not close enough to discuss the physics/modelling aspects of climate (CO2 role in particular) which that "plant scientist" is trying to do.
16
u/WikiBox 4d ago edited 4d ago
He makes unsubstantiated claims. Only he knows what it is he is referring to when he say why, and he doesn't say.
It would be great if he was right. But I am pretty certain that he isn't. If he had something that indicated that the established science is wrong about the effect of added CO2 to the atmosphere, it would be sensational. incredible. Amazing. The discovery of the century. It would invalidate a lot of science, all supporting the theory of the greenhouse effect and greenhouse gases.
But "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
His claims are very extraordinary. But he doesn't provide any proof at all. Not weak proof. Not mediocre proof. Not plausible proof. Not extraordinary proof. He provides no proof at all.
2
u/another_lousy_hack 3d ago
Agreed, Hitchens' Razor applies here: That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
3
u/PoolQueasy7388 4d ago
Besides. Take a look around. MEGA Hurricanes, flooding. Hottest it's been in forever, etc. etc.
8
u/BigMax 4d ago
So there's a problem when debating anti-climate change people.
The problem is that they aren't arguing in good faith to begin with. There is NO science that says we aren't experiencing climate change as a result of increased CO2 in the atmosphere. That science simply doesn't exist.
So this person is intentionally lying, cherry picking data, willfully misinterpreting data, or some combination of the three. It's hard to argue against that, because he has a deep seated desire to believe what he believes. It's like arguing against the existence of God to someone deeply religious. There's no facts or logic you can bring up.
Also - the most skilled anti-science people are going to just throw questions at you until you give up. They will say "here's a fact" and you will say "no, that's wrong, here is proof." Then they will say "fine, here's another fact" and you will say "nope, wrong again, here is proof." Then they will do it again, and again. And we aren't perfect experts, so one day he will say "here's a fact" and you will probably figure that he's wrong but you won't have the knowledge to refute it in that moment, and he will claim victory.
There's a great example of that with holocaust deniers. One random thing they bring up is something like "so they said the gas chambers were built to kill people in WW2. But the paint that has been sampled and found in those chambers wasn't manufactured until 1953!!! So it's a hoax!!!" And you can't possibly know anything about what paint was sampled from where, and when various paint was manufactured. So they say "ah ha!! See?? You can't disprove my paint logic, therefore the holocaust was a hoax!!!"
Anyway, in short, when you argue against someone invested in lies, it's hard to be the one who has to always speak the truth, when the other person can just invent fiction on their side.
7
u/Infamous_Employer_85 4d ago
H2O vapor is the main weather forming component
Correct, but water vapor, at 0.25% of the atmosphere, is a condensible gas, the mean amount in the atmosphere is determined by temperature
Controlled experiments indicate that the addition of CO2 in air up to 10,000 ppm have little or no effect on warming under atmospheric conditions.
Incorrect, we have directly measured changes in absorption in the atmosphere.
1
u/PoolQueasy7388 4d ago
They've been measuring it for years up on Mauna Loa thru Scripps Inst. for years.( Keeling Curve)
2
u/Infamous_Employer_85 4d ago
That's a measurement of CO2, i was referencing direct measurements of the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere.https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/24/6375/2024/
-1
u/Honest_Cynic 2d ago
"the mean amount in the atmosphere is determined by temperature"
That assumes the Clausius-Clapeyron equation holds, which gives the amount of water vapor for fully saturated air vs temperature, i.e. 100% r.h. But, even the air coming off wide oceans averages 70% r.h., so much more is involved.
Rather than ASSume the C-C relation holds, why not measure the amount of water vapor? Has there been the predicted global increase? I haven't seen any data to verify that, indeed the opposite. Can you link a single paper?
2
u/Infamous_Employer_85 1d ago
Has there been the predicted global increase?
This was pointed out to you months ago
According to the Clausius-Clapeyron equation, the air can generally hold around 7% more moisture for every 1C of temperature rise. Therefore, for relative humidity to stay the same under 1C of warming, the moisture content in the air also needs to increase by 7%.
In theory, if there are no limiting factors, then this is the rate of increase we would expect to see. However, the real world does have limiting factors – and so relative humidity is decreasing.
The Earth’s land surface has been warming faster than the oceans over the past few decades. But, while the oceans contain an inexhaustible supply of water to be evaporated, the same is not the case for land.
In fact, we know that most of the water vapour over land actually originates from evaporation over oceans. This moist air is moved around the globe thanks to the atmospheric circulation and some then flows over land.
The slower warming of the oceans means that there has not been enough moisture evaporated into – and then held in – the air above the oceans to keep pace with the rising temperatures over land. This means that the air is not as saturated as it was and – as the chart below shows – relative humidity has decreased.
0
u/Honest_Cynic 1d ago edited 1d ago
The linked plot is from this article (Carbon Brief is a climate-fear blog):
https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-investigating-climate-changes-humidity-paradox/
Termed "paradox" because climate models have long assumed that relative humidity will stay constant as air temperature rises (per C-C relation), yet it hasn't. The same paper has a plot showing that relative humidity has decreased 0.5% from 1970-2020.
Re implications, the article mostly ignores that the humidity data undercuts the main prediction of climate models, which is that a corresponding increase in water vapor will greatly magnify the minor effect of increased CO2 (since H2O is the dominant GHG), stating:
"Increasing water vapour at the surface means more water vapour will eventually make its way up through the atmosphere where its role as a greenhouse gas becomes important."
This implies that steady-state in the upper atmosphere hasn't yet been reached. Does any reader imagine a multi-decade time lag? Perhaps the only way to spin the narrative into a future crisis. Meanwhile, satellites actually measure water vapor in the entire atmosphere and they have found no increase in specific humidity (total water vapor), and a large decrease in relative humidity, at least in semi-arid regions:
5
u/fungussa 4d ago
Well, climate change denial is already a failed strategy, as:
All of the world's governments unanimously accept that man-made climate change is real and poses a major threat to civilization
All of the world's academies of science accept it too
Virtually all of the world's multi-national corporations accept the science, including ExxonMobil, BP, Shell, Ford, Nike, GM, GE, Google etc
There are loads of pages online claiming the Earth is flat, the range thing with climate change denial.
3
u/MKIncendio 4d ago
”There is no real evidence that global warming is due to atmospheric CO2.“
”Note the original experiments conducted 150-200 years ago were conducted in a vacuum. We do not live in a vacuum. Credible studies conducted at the turn of the present century indicate that 50% of the warming that we are seeing is due to the direct effects of terrestrial surface heating, due to human activity, (urban heat islands, deforestation and overgrazing). This is especially true in the tropical regions, the main heat reservoir for Earth.”
Gee I wonder what gets released when we do terrestrial activities and the consequence of said terrestrial activities in relation to this neat thing called the Sun, unless he took mom’s ramblings to heart when he kept leaving the window open during winter and heated up the damn neighborbood!
2
u/srmcmahon 4d ago
I hadn't even caught that last sentence. Any heat reservoir in the tropics is probably the oceans, where there's no cattle grazing.
1
u/MKIncendio 3d ago
I actually missed when he mentioned Deforestation as a contributor to said Terrestrial Activities. GEE WHILICKERS I WONDER WHAT GETS RELEASED WHEN PLANTS WITHHOLDING A PARTICULAR CHEMICAL TO GROW GETS CUT DOWN FOR RESOURCES lmao.
And yeah, vents and dikes helping to warm up oceans and tropics do contribute. Gee whilickers I wonder what said vents release in terms of gaseous product when also providing heat :333
I have no idea what that guy was trying to prove lol. For Grazing I’d bet more methane gets produced if they’re freeroaming and naturally eating stuff, but that’s such a moot talking point when the significance of CO2 is just that much greater than Methane/Sulphur Dioxide/Hydrocarbons such that it’s just not worth talking about when regarding climate change as a whole!
2
u/thearcofmystery 4d ago
CO2, CH4, NO2, HFCs (there are many of them but particularly HFC-23) HCFCs, SF6, all these goodies and more and retired plant scientist is just another fossil fuel company schill, sue all the fossil fuel companies and take all their money since they seem content to burn the whole world down for profit.
2
u/another_lousy_hack 3d ago
tl;dr: Unqualified non-expert relying on tired old denier tropes. Don't waste your time trying to reason people out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.
Honestly, anyone accepting that bullshit is already convinced climate change isn't real. Or that it's a Chinese conspiracy. Or NASA is faking it. Or whatever it is that stupid people tell themselves in order to feel smarter than actual scientists.
1
1
u/Honest_Cynic 3d ago
Some truths and some mistruths. All scientists agree that a doubling of CO2 would cause a 1 C rise in global planet temperature. But it hasn't doubled, and the increased CO2 (since official records began 1958) can explain only a small fraction (~20%) of the experienced warming since then. The models which predict much higher temperature increase (closer to experienced) rely upon a corresponding increase in water vapor (much stronger GHG), citing the Clausius-Clapeyron relation. But that hasn't been measured, at least per any academic papers I've seen (please link if there are). Indeed, the opposite (Jan 2024 paper reported no increase in semi-arid regions, even a decrease some places). Strangely, few scientists question that critical assumption.
1
u/srmcmahon 2d ago
I am disheartened in some ways by responses. Here is why:
True, it is not likely this particular self-claimed "plant scientist" would change his mind over an online comment on his letter or a response letter to the editor.
I don't know what the overall effect is on discourse when these people are just ignored. I do think there are people who are sincerely uncertain about global warming and they deserve a response. I also think that responding with contempt simply confirms notions that powerful forces are hiding the "truth" and attacks the person instead of the false belief. So my response would be directed to the community (it's a local newspaper) and hopefully productive.
We need people who AREN'T experts in climate physics or even chemistry to grasp the problem. There was a time when people largely listened to the government. When extension services told housewives how to properly preserve low-acid foods to avoid botulism, when public health agencies campaigned against common drinking cups for water in classrooms to help prevent Tb and other diseases, when they announced the polio vaccine, people took notice and acted accordingly. That doesn't happen anymore (Vietnam may have done a lot to destroy government credibility and the problem has only continued to grow). We need ways to talk to them.
2
u/twotime 2d ago edited 2d ago
We need people who AREN'T experts in climate physics or even chemistry to grasp the problem
How are you proposing to do that? There is no logical way to refute random rambling (or perhaps lies) of every "plant scientist".
Even if that "scientist" puts up a coherent statement (you know with well defined claims, references, etc), rather than random rambling, any refutation would be highly technical and WAY beyond non-specialist's ability to judge it...Ultimately a non-specialist simply has no way to judge that and given a pile of bullshit the media is producing (looking at you FoxNews, NewsMax & Co) a non-specialist will simply believe what matches his preexisting beliefs.
While I could suggest some vague ideas, I really donot see how they would be implemented/acted upon
better science education in schools/colleges (in fact, i'd really like to see every federal politician to pass basic-science-literacy tests). This should generally improve both understanding of the physical world AND restore the trustworthiness of science.
somehow reestablish trustworthiness of mainstream media and governments.... (have no idea how that could be achieved)
keep also in mind that this is not just a USA problem, other western countries have similar issues (even if on somewhat smaller scale)
1
u/srmcmahon 2d ago
Well, you certainly can refute--he claimed studies proved CO2 did not cause temperature increase under atmospheric conditions; he did not cite those studies, but Berkeley National Labs studies did establish resulting temperature increase through direct measurement.
But yeah, education may not even help: https://rcgd.isr.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/motivated_numeracy_and_enlightened_selfgovernment.pdf?fbclid=IwY2xjawHZxBFleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHZAkUn6Fxcer3ZecUHEUjNptKNb4XNROJo4GX9wuwLgmgP4x9ErenQmfoQ_aem_WrBTp_6y20t0wjlWs5bCVQ
This was a study in which groups of people were presented with data and asked what conclusions the data supported. The participants' level of numeracy was assessed before the experiment. There were two examples of data. The data in both cases was created for the experiment, it did not come from actual studies. One data example was ideologically neutral--it compared two skin treatments and their success in treating a rash. The other data example used exactly the same numbers, but this time the numbers were presented as the outcomes in cities with and without gun control measurements.
A lot of people misinterpreted the data regardless because of how intuition often leads people astray. But those with higher numeracy scores were much better at interpreting the data in the neutral example. However, when it came to the gun control example, forget it--the power of ideology overrode numeracy factors--didn't matter that the people who understood data better when they did not associate it with politics (and likely understood it better in part because of education), once ideology entered the mix, their ability to draw logical inference pretty much went out the window.
2
u/twotime 2d ago edited 1d ago
Well, you certainly can refute--he claimed studies proved CO2 did not cause temperature increase under atmospheric conditions; he did not cite those studies, but Berkeley National Labs studies did establish resulting temperature increase through direct measurement.
No, unfortunately it would not work. Refutation would be "refuted" too with a mix of lies,half-lies (and grains of irrelevant truth mixed in to increase the confusion). A layman would not be able to tell the difference between the two.
Ultimately, it does boil down to trusting (or not trusting) the speaker...
1
u/srmcmahon 4d ago
Me again. Plant scientists around where I live are often employed by seed companies (talked to one in a bar once and learned about corn snap, which sounded eerie) and I am aware there have been plant studies re the claims that CO2 increases growth (to some extent yes, but they don't grow corn at 29,000 feet, at least not yet, and there can be detrimental effects as well). His use of the phrase "under atmospheric conditions" seems like a copout besides being vague, like he's trying to say that isolating gases as Lyndale did would invalidate things.
But I was hoping to get an idea of what controlled studies he's referring to (obviously not his own). I do know that all kinds of people who may indeed have scientific training (ranging from BS to PhD) in a variety of fields claim the expertise to deny global warming (which is what I call it, Frank Luntz be damned) and also that they are full of s***.
2
u/PoolQueasy7388 4d ago
4th grade science class would help.
3
u/srmcmahon 4d ago
You're missing my point.
I did, however, find this. D. R. Feldman, W. D. Collins, P. J. Gero, M. S. Torn, E. J. Mlawer, T. R. Shippert. Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010. Nature, 2015; DOI: 10.1038/nature14240
Direct measurement of effect of CO2. And contradicts him.
56
u/Additional_Ninja_999 4d ago
"Retired plant scientist" believes that he is better qualified than the entire IPCC to evaluate climate modelling (not his field). Nice!