Is ChatGPT Lying To You About Climate Change?
How my attempt to answer a simple greenhouse theory question revealed confusion, misunderstandings, inaccuracies and more..
Wait what?!… Was this really just a ‘‘misunderstanding’’. If this came from a person, you would call it a LIE!
A quick summary of this post:
ChatGPT is trained on the contents of the entire internet, so what better place to try and find an answer to a simple question about greenhouse theory that has long-evaded me?
In the ensuing conversation, ChatGPT made a number of greenhouse-related assertions.
But each time I challenged ChatGPT’s assertions, it simply owned up to it’s ‘mistakes’ and ‘misunderstandings’, before asserting yet more (incorrect) facts!
I reveal a number of other examples of bias and contradictions on issues related to climate change more broadly..
..and I still can’t find any examples of the greenhouse effect being used in any product or industrial application!
Please do read to the end to see a selection of my ‘Climate Contradictions with ChatGPT’ examples!
It Started off with a Simple Question…
There is a simple question about greenhouse theory to which I am yet to find a satisfactory answer:
Are there any man-made examples of products or processes where the greenhouse effect is utilized?
One would have thought the answer is a resounding ‘yes’, given how powerful the phenomenon apparently is.
After all, a compound as stable as carbon dioxide, when making up a trace amount of just 0.04% in our atmosphere, can raise the Earth’s entire average temperature, modify weather patterns and even warm the oceans.
And look at Venus’ so-called ‘runaway greenhouse effect’. An entire planet turned into a ‘hellish inferno’, with a surface temperature ‘hot enough to melt lead’.
(I raise some doubts about Venus’ ‘runaway greenhouse effect’ in Is there a Greenhouse Effect on Venus?)
ChatGPT to the rescue?
The recent arrival of large language model AI has given us access to a powerful set of new tools, maybe as significant as the search engine or email. I wrote about it’s potential implications for our industry in You’re Fired.
So what better use for perhaps the most well known of the AI Chatbots, ChatGPT, than to get it to help me find an answer to my evasive greenhouse theory question?
I asked ChatGPT to give me examples of the greenhouse effect being utilized by humans. Given that this model is trained on the ENTIRE internet (up to 2021) - if such examples exist, surely ChatGPT could find them?
I was really looking forward to seeing what my AI-assistant could come up with.
But nothing could have prepared me for what actually happened…
My Conversation with ChatGPT
My ChatGPT conversation is summarized below. I have edited some of the responses to remove repetition but I’ve been careful not to change any of the context.
To help follow the conversation I’ve also added my own emphasis in some of the responses, and split up the chat with commentary to help you follow along.
TC: Are there any examples where people utilize the properties of greenhouse gases in some industrial, manufacturing or product application?
ChatGPT: Yes, there are applications where humans utilize the properties of greenhouse gases, particularly their ability to absorb and re-emit heat energy. One such example is the use of greenhouse gases in insulation materials.
Certain gases, such as fluorinated gases, have high heat-trapping properties due to their strong infrared absorption characteristics. These gases are used as blowing agents in the production of foam insulation materials like expanded polystyrene (EPS). They absorb heat energy and re-emit it, reducing heat transfer through the material.
Another example is the use of greenhouse gases in solar thermal systems. Certain gases, such as sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) have high infrared absorption properties. They can be used as heat transfer fluids or as encapsulants in solar collectors, such as solar power systems.
COMMENT:
In response to my original prompt, ChatGPT gave two examples of how the greenhouse effect is utilized; 1) in certain insulation materials and 2) in solar thermal systems.
I asked for further clarity regarding the insulation material example:
TC: gases such as fluorinated gases used as blowing agents in foams are used due to their thermal conductivity properties, not infrared absorption characteristics. So their ability to absorb and re-emit heat energy is not utilized. Can you clarify your response?
ChatGPT: Apologies for the confusion in my previous response. You are correct that fluorinated gases are primarily chosen for their thermal conductivity properties, not their infrared absorption characteristics.
Foam insulation materials, such as EPS, work by trapping air or gas pockets within the material structure, reducing heat transfer by conduction.
In this case, the greenhouse gases used as blowing agents are not specifically employed for their greenhouse effect properties.
I apologize for any confusion caused by my earlier response.
COMMENT:
Ok, so the ‘insulation material’ example didn’t stand up to scrutiny, now to clarify the ‘solar thermal systems’ example..
TC: The use of greenhouse gases in solar thermal systems do not utilize their ability to absorb and re-emit IR radiation, but because of other properties such as their viscosity and heat capacity. Can you clarify?
ChatGPT: You are correct once again, and I apologize for the inaccurate information in my previous response. The utilization of greenhouse gases in solar thermal systems is not primarily based on their ability to absorb and re-emit infrared (IR) radiation, but rather on other properties such as their viscosity and heat capacity.
I apologize for any confusion caused by my previous response, and I appreciate your diligence in pointing out the inaccuracies.
COMMENT:
So the two original examples that ChatGPT produced were false. Back to the beginning!
I modified my prompt making it more specific to give ChatGPT another chance to come up with something more convincing:
TC: Can you provide any examples where humans utilize the properties of greenhouse gases in some industrial, manufacturing or product application, specifically their ability to absorb IR radiation and then to re-emit it, causing something to heat up? Or does this process only happen naturally in the atmosphere?
ChatGPT: The specific utilization of greenhouse gases' ability to absorb infrared (IR) radiation and re-emit it to cause intentional heating in industrial or product applications is relatively limited. There are a few examples where this phenomenon is leveraged by humans. Here are two examples:
Infrared heating systems: Some industrial processes and heating applications utilize infrared heating systems, which emit infrared radiation to directly heat objects or surfaces. When electricity passes through elements, they become hot and emit infrared radiation, which is absorbed by objects in the vicinity, causing them to heat up.
Greenhouse drying: In certain drying applications, greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) can be used to enhance the efficiency of the drying process. CO2 gas, when exposed to infrared radiation, absorbs the energy and re-emits it, resulting in localized heating. This property can be leveraged in processes like greenhouse drying, where CO2 is introduced into a drying chamber or enclosure.
COMMENT:
The first of these examples immediately struck me as describing something that I wasn’t asking for, so I asked ChatGPT to clarify..
TC: Infrared heating systems use a heated element to emit IR radiation, which in turn heats up the object. But they don't utilise greenhouse gases or their properties. Can you clarify.
ChatGPT: You are absolutely right, and I apologize for the confusion in my previous response. Infrared heating systems do not utilize greenhouse gases or their properties for heating.
The process does not involve the greenhouse effect, nor does it rely on the absorption and re-emission of infrared radiation by greenhouse gases.
COMMENT:
But the last example had me somewhat intrigued.
I hadn’t heard of ‘Greenhouse Drying’ before…
..could this be the example I was looking for?
So it was with some excitement that I decided to ask ChatGPT to give me some more information about this potential long sought-after example of man-made utilization of the greenhouse effect..
TC: Can you give a specific example of 'greenhouse drying' and what it's used for, or provide a website or link where i can learn more about the process?
COMMENT:
But here was the shocking answer that I received..
ChatGPT: I apologize for the confusion earlier regarding "greenhouse drying." It seems there was a misunderstanding in my previous response, as there is no specific process or widely recognized practice known as "greenhouse drying" related to the use of greenhouse gases for drying purposes.
Again, I apologize for any confusion, and I appreciate your understanding.
COMMENT: Wait what?!
You just made it up!
Was this really just a ‘misunderstanding’? If this came from a person, you would call it a LIE!
I Give Up!
Here is where I disappointingly cut my losses and ended my quest for a ChatGPT answer.
Philosophically speaking, can artificial intelligence ‘lie’? I don’t know, but certainly from a human perspective that’s how it appeared.
The model is trained on the internet (up to 2021 in ChatGPT’s case), so presumably it’s responses reflect what humans have written on countless pages of content connected to the world wide web.
This isn’t the only example of climate confusion. In fact, the more you look the more you find.
Below I have given a few fun examples of what I call ‘Climate Contradictions with ChatGPT!’
(To see the actual ChatGPT prompts and responses you can find them on my LINKEDIN feed where they are posted as and when I come across these ‘climate-contradictions’.)
Some final warnings about the use of AI chatbots for research into climate change-related issues:
ChatGPT will confirm and assert the general narrative around climate change, despite it also producing data to the contrary.
ChatGPT will assert factual statements reinforcing the dominant climate change theory that may, on further interrogation, turn out to be completely made up!
And perhaps most frustratingly, despite being trained on the ENTIRE WORLD WIDE WEB, I still can’t find an example of humans utilizing the greenhouse effect in any process or product!
Be careful out there,
-T
