Just for fun: global warming literacy quiz

[Darth Wong]

Quick Climate Change Literacy Quiz

1. Why did scientists first devise the "greenhouse effect" theory?

1. To justify increased spending on environmental research and technologies.
2. To explain why the Earth is not mostly frozen over.
3. As an excuse to oversimplify highly complex and unpredictable environmental patterns.
4. To explain the so-called "hockey stick" pattern, which showed global temperatures rising in the late 20th century.
5. They are being controlled by a conspiracy of liberals, environmentalists, and UN leaders whose shared goal is the destruction of America.
6. It was an accidental mathematical prediction deriving from unrelated research, and researchers seized upon it.

Spoiler

The answer is #2: to explain why the Earth is not frozen over. The dual motivations were to explain thermodynamic calculations showing that the Earth should be 30 to 40 degrees colder than it is, and to explain the ice ages of the distant past. It is also worth noting that nobody "seized upon it", and in fact, most of the scientific community initially dismissed it, until further research improved the theory and raised its profile and credibility.

2. Who first publicly argued that human industrial activity could contribute significantly to the greenhouse effect?

1. Al Gore in 2006, in his documentary called "An Inconvenient Truth".
2. Stephen Hawking in 1993 at Cambridge, UK.
3. Linus Torvalds in 1991 at Helsinki, Finland.
4. The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) at the UN, in 1988.
5. Svante Arrhenius in 1896 at Stockholm, Sweden.

Spoiler

The answer is #5. Yes, the CO2 greenhouse gas theory is more than a century old. It has been extensively modified and improved over the decades, of course.

3. The mechanism underlying the greenhouse gas theory has been extensively modified since its simplistic origins. How does the present-day "greenhouse effect" theory work?

1. Greenhouse gases are theorized to trap some of the Sun's rays, so that they cannot be reflected back to space.
2. Greenhouse gases are theorized to block some of the infrared radiation from the Earth's surface, keeping it from escaping into space.
3. Greenhouse gases are theorized to block some of the infrared radiation from the Earth's surface and atmosphere, keeping it from escaping into space.
4. Greenhouse gases are theorized to regulate atmospheric temperatures through complex mathematical models in which they alter the electromagnetic frequency of solar radiation as it bombards the Earth, thus changing its energy content.
5. The "greenhouse effect" theory is a fraud. It does not work.
6. None of the above.

Spoiler

The answer is #3. Greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation not just from the surface, but also from the atmosphere itself, which absorbs infrared and then re-radiates it. This is why the upper atmospheric layer is so important: the top layer is the one which regulates how much infrared actually escapes into space. Lower layers merely radiate to upper layers, so they influence temperatures at various altitudes, but it is the upper layers which are the gatekeepers, so to speak.

Note: #5 is wrong even if you think global warming is completely false, because the question is how the theory works, not whether you agree with it.

4. Researchers have conducted experiments to determine that even a one third reduction in the concentration of CO2 in a gas chamber would make only 0.4% difference in infrared radiation transmission. Therefore, they concluded that changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration would make no significant difference.

1. The above statement is true, and proves that man-made CO2 makes no difference.
2. The above statement is true, but the researchers erred in their methods and conclusions.
3. The above statement is true, but we have not heard about it because the mainstream media is not interested in reporting the story.
4. The above statement is partially true, but it contains numerous misrepresentations.
5. The above statement is false. No one is certain who first began spreading this story.

Spoiler

The answer is #2. The story is completely true, but the experiment was conducted in the late 19th century by Angstrom, and contained numerous flaws in methodology. Specifically, they conducted experiments on a narrow range of frequencies and concentrations, and did not bother to check outside that range or attempt to generate coefficients. Also, they were working with a primitive version of the CO2 greenhouse gas theory which treated the atmosphere as a single layer rather than a multi-layered phenomenon.

5. The most important piece of evidence for the "greenhouse effect" theory is:

1. The IPCC's "hockey stick" graph of temperature increases in recent decades.
2. The melting of glaciers.
3. Unusually violent and unpredictable weather patterns in recent years, such as hurricanes.
4. Meterological data dating back to the early 20th century.
5. Gas radiation absorption experiments.
6. NASA's detailed modeling of atmospheric patterns conducted in the 1980s.

Spoiler

The answer is #5. A scientific theory is based upon a mechanism, and the most important evidence for the theory is evidence for the mechanism. The gas radiation absorption experiments demonstrate that greenhouse gases affect the radiation balance of the atmosphere, and this means increased greenhouse gases like CO2 will have a warming effect irrespective of all other factors. Even if other warming or cooling effects exist, it becomes irrefutable that CO2 in the upper atmosphere would have a warming effect once the radiation balance is understood. Those other effects would complicate projections but would not refute the warming effect (imagine the analogy of turning on an electric space heater in a poorly insulated room; the precise effect on the room might be difficult to project because of outside influences, but it is undeniable that the heater would make the room warmer than it would otherwise be).

6. Ice core sampling data has shown that ancient geological warming periods at the ends of ice ages began before sharp CO2 increases in the atmosphere. Typically, they began about 800 years earlier. In short, when the ice ages ended, the warming began before the CO2 increase, not after.

1. The statement above is true, and indicates that CO2 was not the trigger for past warming periods. However, this does not disprove CO2 greenhouse gas theory.
2. The statement above is true, and indicates that CO2 was not the trigger for past warming periods. This disproves CO2 greenhouse gas theory.
3. The statement above is partially true, but we lack the precision to be so accurate with our time estimates of such ancient events, so global warming deniers are taking advantage of measurement uncertainty in order to force a preferred conclusion.
4. The statement above is a popular mythology. The story was originally manufactured by conservative bloggers and took on a life of its own through the Internet.

Spoiler

The answer is #1. The story is completely true, and highlights one of the public image problems faced by global warming theory: specifically, that people assume it must be all or nothing, ie- CO2 must be either 100% responsible for all warming or it has nothing to do with warming. In reality, while something else (such as long cycles in the Sun's irradiance) can trigger a historical warming or cooling period, CO2 can greatly magnify it. Since warming periods lasted for around 5000 years, the CO2 effect is actually dominant in terms of the sheer amount of warming, even if it wasn't the sole or original trigger. Remember that there is no serious scientific question that the CO2 effect itself actually exists; the gas radiation absorption experiments prove that. There is a similar feedback/magnification effect theorized for water vapour.

Suggested Reading:

• http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... #Responses (common AGW arguments and responses)
• http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm (a brief summary of the history of the theory from the American Institute of Physics, with links to more detailed information)

EDIT: slightly improved the wording of the questions, added a few more false answers to make guessing more difficult, and added one more question. Also added links to suggested reading material.

[Count Chocula]

Okay, I got all the answers right without Googling, but I'm still confused. Does the current theory actually constitute a call to action (IPCC/carbon trading/etc), or do we need to refine the theory and validate it further?
Spoiler

You can guess what my opinion is, but it's just an opinion. Test and validate before even beginning to think about anything even resembling a global policy.

P.S. Neat quiz Mike.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Okay, I got all the answers right without Googling, but I'm still confused. Does the current theory actually constitute a call to action (IPCC/carbon trading/etc), or do we need to refine the theory and validate it further?
Spoiler

You can guess what my opinion is, but it's just an opinion. Test and validate before even beginning to think about anything even resembling a global policy.

P.S. Neat quiz Mike.

The testing we have done is sufficient, to the point that models can postdict past climates with a high degree of accuracy. The consequences of continued delay will be... decidedly unpleasant within our lifetimes. We need global policy.

[Darth Wong]

Okay, I got all the answers right without Googling, but I'm still confused. Does the current theory actually constitute a call to action (IPCC/carbon trading/etc), or do we need to refine the theory and validate it further?

The theory has been refined for decades. It is already far more complex than almost all of the naysayers could even imagine. It's complex enough that you would need to do real research (not Googling) just to understand part of it, and you need teams of people generating complex computer simulations to produce predictions. Just how raw and primitive do you think it is? Just who do you think is qualified to determine whether it's been sufficiently refined, if not the scientists involved?

[Covenant]

As stated, the theory is incredibly refined. So the "we should investigate further..." thing is just a red herring. If you truly believe not enough research has been done, then I'm sure there's lots of non-crazy people willing to explain the science in a calm and reasonable fashion.

Okay, I got all the answers right without Googling, but I'm still confused. Does the current theory actually constitute a call to action (IPCC/carbon trading/etc), or do we need to refine the theory and validate it further?

Unless one believed the theory is entirely false it would be a call to action, especially since so many of the actions you can take are valuable for other reasons. To make no action at all is just putting spite ahead of good policy. You don't even need to believe in climate change to see the benefits on energy policy and air/water/biosphere quality.

This is the extreme position one is forced into. Pointing towards climate conspiracies makes you look looney, but arguing against most of the sensible options seems like strange politics in a truly nonpartisan discussion. All the science shows it can have an effect, even if you poist that it can but isn't. It's not that you need to suddenly shut off the reactors and go live in the forests. Entirely reasonable energy and carbon policy would have dramatic positive impacts on consumers and citizens of the biosphere. The only risk of harm from these policies is to corporate entities unwilling to change. Regulations don't destroy companies.

[El Moose Monstero]

That was interesting, got all but the Angstrom one right, which I'd never heard about before. Thanks for doing that, genuinely an interesting flick through, though admittedly a couple were by process of elimination.

I got faced with a non-science friend who gave me the usual passive-agressive 'I'm not saying it isn't true, just that there's not been enough proof yet' line a few weeks back, for which I sharply brought out the final argument about absorption, but I just got more passive-agressive placations and I could tell it hadn't really had any impact. Ugh, I blame the media.

[Darth Wong]

I'm curious whether people who get the quiz right are just guessing, based on test-taking experience and assumptions about what sounds most likely to be true, not what they actually know to be true.

[Formless]

I got a couple wrong I wasn't expecting to get wrong for that exact reason, Mike. For instance, here you had "none of the above" as a possible answer, my test taking instinct kicked in and went for it... and it turned out to be wrong.

[Edi]

I got the quiz right and not because of guesswork or deduction, but because I recently had the whole atmospheric mechanics issue explained to me in significant detail along with all the numbers and formulas and how it works. It wasn't aimed at me per se, but to a wider audience on a different forum and was very, very clear.

So I actually understood all of the issues involved here. Better than I used to at any rate, since it was more of a detailed explanation of what I already knew in general terms. I can provide links if anyone is interested.

[Stark]

The only ones I got right are due to reading the SimEarth manual in highschool.

[Alyrium Denryle]

100% accuracy. Knowledge of the subject. It is not as if i don't have to pay attention to this sort of thing.

[Flagg]

Okay, I got all the answers right without Googling, but I'm still confused. Does the current theory actually constitute a call to action (IPCC/carbon trading/etc), or do we need to refine the theory and validate it further?
Spoiler

You can guess what my opinion is, but it's just an opinion. Test and validate before even beginning to think about anything even resembling a global policy.

P.S. Neat quiz Mike.

Yeah, on this subject that completely and utterly retarded and you should not procreate or at least have (get an abortion if the condom breaks) carved into your forehead by Brad Pitt. Even barring the known facts about climate change theory, the mere fact that the contributors of greenhouse gasses also happen to be pollutants, running out, or a fucking worldwide security crisis are reason enough to act.

The testing we have done is sufficient, to the point that models can postdict past climates with a high degree of accuracy. The consequences of continued delay will be... decidedly unpleasant within our lifetimes. We need global policy.

Yeah, I think it's too late for that. Unless some form of very cheap fusion is invented and rapidly and significantly reduces or eliminates just the human produced CO2 used to power the planet we will still have agricultural (from farming animals for meat) contributions of gasses like methane (which are far worse than CO2) to deal with. And last I checked they were saying fusion as a power source (not even a cheap one for poor and developing countries to use) is still like 20-50 years away barring some miraculous breakthrough.

IIRC we would have to actually reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses that occur naturally to stop the domino effect we have already started. In fact I recall a story recently saying that the frozen methane deposits in the oceans are starting to thaw and come to the surface further ramming the giant cock of GW home.

No, it's going to be pretty fucking ugly until civilizations and populations adapt to the shitstorm ahead. Of course developed nations will be able to build seawalls, levees, and probably even solutions to desertification to compensate, but as usual the poor people are fucked royally.

I'm curious whether people who get the quiz right are just guessing, based on test-taking experience and assumptions about what sounds most likely to be true, not what they actually know to be true.

A couple I knew to be fact, one was a trick question, and one I got right simply because the dates given were later than when I knew people had already been talking about the issue.

[PeZook]

Well, I suck. I only got the one about the underlying mechanism right.

[Lagmonster]

I had sufficient prior knowledge to get #3 and #5 correct, guessed correctly on #1 and #4 (the alternatives were far too unlikely to be right and in some cases, simply silly, such as the 'conspiracy' and 'red herring' options), and got #2 incorrect, because I had no idea. In retrospect, I should have just guessed 'the oldest one' on the assumption that you were trying to make a point via rigged question.

[Serafina]

1 got #1,2 and 3 right due to knowledge, #4 due to test-taking skills (i was not sure wether 2 or 4 is right there) and #5 actually wrong.

[Anguirus]

100%, but some of them were slight guesses on things I didn't remember explicitly.

[Surlethe]

Here's my track record.

(1): It's "obvious". (It was a homework problem in my astrophysics class.)
(2): Test-taking skill.
(3): Educated guesswork.
(4): Got it wrong, had no idea.
(5): Got it wrong.

Hopefully one summer in the next few years I'll have time to sit down for a month or two and learn this stuff in some detail, but until then I have only a very rough understanding of the theory.

[Aaron]

I only got #2 right (educated guess), I'm not too proud to admit that I know jack and shit about most science related topics unless it pertains to my former career. However, I also don't deny that GW is a problem.

[Simon_Jester]

I'm curious whether people who get the quiz right are just guessing, based on test-taking experience and assumptions about what sounds most likely to be true, not what they actually know to be true.

For me, in hindsight, it's hard to say. I know enough to be able to answer the questions with what I know about the science. But I might be a relevant test case, because I have a much higher than average general scientific education, at least a decent chunk of specialist knowledge in physics... but I have no specialization in climate studies and no contact with others who do.

For question #1:
I deduced the correct answer by process of elimination, because all the others were clearly wrong given the way that long-lasting scientific theories emerge. Answers (1), (3), and (5) are stupid. (4) seemed insufficient, and it would have been possible to test the relevant property of CO2 much earlier than the late 1900s. So I answered (2) with high confidence, expecting that if I was wrong it would be (4).

For question #2:
I have seen references to manmade global warming that predate (1), (2), and (3), and in all probability (4), so by process of elimination the answer had to be (5). Also, Arrhenius was a legendary genius at chemistry, and was therefore a more probable origin than any of the others except the IPCC. If you had cited some random chemist or climate scientist of the early 20th century along with Arrhenius, I would have been very hard pressed to answer this question correctly.

For question #3:
Again, I deduced the correct answer by a (close-fought) process of elimination. (4) is wrong, (5) is wrong because an IR-absorber could not possibly warm the planet except by mechanisms 1-3, so far as I can tell. (2) is a subset of (3) and since the atmosphere radiates IR just like the surface (they're at the same temperature, more or less), that makes (3) more accurate than (2). The real conundrum was (1), which just... felt wrong. I have a hard time explaining why I thought so, but it wasn't pure test-taking skill that told me so.

For question #4:
I got this wrong. The conclusion of the experiment should not be true unless extremely high densities of CO2 were needed to create the infrared absorption layer that we know exists. They aren't, so it isn't. So, being a faithful little science fan with inadequate respect for Murphy's Law, I assumed that the experimental result in question was not seen.

(1) and (3) were obviously wrong, but I had no way to tell whether the answer was (2) or (4), because I'd never heard of the Angstrom experiment in question in my life.

For question #5:
This was tricky because "most important piece of evidence" is itself tricky if you aren't an expert or taking the word of someone who is. I got it right, but that's mostly because I'm taking the problem from my own perspective. The kind of people I work around are used to making assumptions about what HAS to be happening given known properties of a material, regardless of whether we can observe the phenomenon directly. Simulation results, or even direct observations of effects like glacial melting and supercharged weather could be misinterpreted; gas radiation absorption results that have been nailed down repeatedly could not, not given that there is CO2 in the upper atmosphere.

[Narkis]

I got 1 and 3 right. These climatology classes I took last semester finally paid off.

1 and 4 I had no idea about. And I guessed 5 right after eliminating the more unlikely options.

[Spoonist]

->Simon_Jester
You might want to use spoiler tags?

->Darth Wong
Liked the quiz but some Q&A are slightly off, so here are some nitpicks if you should post this quiz elsewhere.
Spoiler

Q1 A2 is not entirely correct. IIRC mostly frozen over was never the assumption. It was only used as a dismissive of arguments against the greenhouse theory.

Q2 When it was first publicly argued we do not know. We do know however when such an argument was first published. Before such publication there where probably lots of arguments of which some probably where public.

Q3 The "upper" atmosphere does not contain any of the single most contibuting of the greenhouse gases, ie water vapor. This since H2O is too heavy for it to be in the "upper" atmosphere. Add to that the concentration of any of the greeenhouse gases are higher closer to earth. So most of the greenhouse effect happens close to earth due to gravity.
Also "upper" is redundant here unless you actually name the different layers. So remove the "upper" and the statement becomes more correct.

Q4 Consider the difference of "to determine" and "that showed". Also if it is a specific research/paper you are refering to then you should name that research/paper.

Q5 Why specify CO2 here? It falsifies the context. Greenhouse effect theory is much more than C02. The only special relevance of C02 would be its relation to anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
It gives away a purpose which you don't want in a quiz like this.

[Korto]

Decided not to guess, so answered "Don't know" to a couple.
1 and 2 were obvious even if I didn't remember who Svante Arrhenius was (I'm sure I learnt about him at some point). I knew 3 was one of the two "traps IR", but not which. 4 had to be either answers 2 or 4, but had no way to pick between them. As for 5, I picked answer 4, but 5 got an honourable mention (know nothing about the NASA modelling, but I felt that lab experiments are given more weight than some modelling done 20+ years ago)

[Teleros]

Got most of them right, but wasn't sure about the one on CO2 absorption experiments. Didn't know who first talked about industrial greenhouse gas emissions being a factor, but it was obviously not #1-4, given how recent they all are. No Google or Wikipedia, guess I've remembered something from my old geography classes .

Does the current theory actually constitute a call to action (IPCC/carbon trading/etc), or do we need to refine the theory and validate it further?

As I understand it, simply doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will increase temperatures by ~1ºC, before you factor in positive and negative feedbacks. So it's then a case of:

1. Is ~1ºC a big enough change to justify a call to arms?

2. If not, is there enough positive feedback to cause a change in temperature great enough for a "call to arms"?

The better skeptics' blogs argue that as positive feedback won't / doesn't dominate (computer models for example tending to be either too simple, based on fault assumptions or "adjusted" to fit the narrative), and a 1ºC rise isn't that big a deal compared to figures like 5+ ºC you get bandied around.

[SirNitram]

Huh. Didn't know the last, got the others mostly from not memorizing the subject, but from knowledge of things like atmospheric heat and so forth. As well as seeing a reference I didn't recignize, then running an idea through my head on if the connection was good.

[Simon_Jester]

->Simon_Jester
You might want to use spoiler tags?

Oops. Shoot. Sorry. Didn't think of it, and now it's too late. On the other hand, you'd have to scroll way down to get the answers off my post; I think it's fair to expect anyone who actually wants to take the quiz to not scroll ahead looking for the answers before trying to answer the question.