Freeman Dyson speaks out about climate science, and fudge

Climatologists Are No Einsteins, Says His Successor

by Paul Mulshine, The Star Ledger via the GWPF

English: Freeman Dyson

English: Freeman Dyson (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Freeman Dyson is a physicist who has been teaching at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton since Albert Einstein was there. When Einstein died in 1955, there was an opening for the title of “most brilliant physicist on the planet.” Dyson has filled it.

So when the global-warming movement came along, a lot of people wondered why he didn’t come along with it. The reason he’s a skeptic is simple, the 89-year-old Dyson said when I phoned him.

“I think any good scientist ought to be a skeptic,” Dyson said.

Then in the late 1970s, he got involved with early research on climate change at the Institute for Energy Analysis in Oak Ridge, Tenn.

That research, which involved scientists from many disciplines, was based on experimentation. The scientists studied such questions as how atmospheric carbon dioxide interacts with plant life and the role of clouds in warming.

But that approach lost out to the computer-modeling approach favored by climate scientists. And that approach was flawed from the beginning, Dyson said.

“I just think they don’t understand the climate,” he said of climatologists. “Their computer models are full of fudge factors.”

A major fudge factor concerns the role of clouds. The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide on its own is limited. To get to the apocalyptic projections trumpeted by Al Gore and company, the models have to include assumptions that CO-2 will cause clouds to form in a way that produces more warming.

“The models are extremely oversimplified,” he said. “They don’t represent the clouds in detail at all. They simply use a fudge factor to represent the clouds.”

Dyson said his skepticism about those computer models was borne out by recent reports of a study by Ed Hawkins of the University of Reading in Great Britain that showed global temperatures were flat between 2000 and 2010 — even though we humans poured record amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere during that decade.

That was vindication for a man who was termed “a civil heretic” in a New York Times Magazine article on his contrarian views. Dyson embraces that label, with its implication that what he opposes is a religious movement. So does his fellow Princeton physicist and fellow skeptic, William Happer.

“There are people who just need a cause that’s bigger than themselves,” said Happer. “Then they can feel virtuous and say other people are not virtuous.”

To show how uncivil this crowd can get, Happer e-mailed me an article about an Australian professor who proposes — quite seriously — the death penalty for heretics such as Dyson. As did Galileo, they can get a reprieve if they recant.

I hope that guy never gets to hear Dyson’s most heretical assertion: Atmospheric CO2 may actually be improving the environment.

“It’s certainly true that carbon dioxide is good for vegetation,” Dyson said. “About 15 percent of agricultural yields are due to CO2 we put in the atmosphere. From that point of view, it’s a real plus to burn coal and oil.”

In fact, there’s more solid evidence for the beneficial effects of CO2 than the negative effects, he said. So why does the public hear only one side of this debate? Because the media do an awful job of reporting it.

“They’re absolutely lousy,” he said of American journalists. “That’s true also in Europe. I don’t know why they’ve been brainwashed.”

I know why: They’re lazy. Instead of digging into the details, most journalists are content to repeat that mantra about “consensus” among climate scientists.

The problem, said Dyson, is that the consensus is based on those computer models. Computers are great for analyzing what happened in the past, he said, but not so good at figuring out what will happen in the future. But a lot of scientists have built their careers on them. Hence the hatred for dissenters.

Full story

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate News, Opinion and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

252 Responses to Freeman Dyson speaks out about climate science, and fudge

  1. tallbloke says:

    Plainly spoken good sense.

  2. Didn’t Michael Mann or another member of The Team refer to Dyson as a “mere physicist” once? Wish I could track down that quote.

  3. Gary Pearse says:

    Dyson’s skepticism is simplicity itself: ““I think any good scientist ought to be a skeptic,” His declarations on the usefulness of models versus experiment is also simple and pretty much what thinking skeptics have been saying. Nice to be in such company!!

  4. mpaul says:

    This has been a really bad few weeks for the Alarmists. No wonder they are unusually cranky.

  5. James Ard says:

    I’m glad to hear my home town was trying to use real science to learn about climate change. Of course, if they didn’t practice real science in Oak Ridge, the place wouldn’t have still existed in the seventies.

  6. Kaboom says:

    Not only lazy but very much infested with leftist leanings and a considerable amount of envy for those who are enterprising and make a good living from a bit of calculated risk-taking. Journalism in my experience attracts two kinds of people, those in it for the love of reporting and investigating and misanthropes, delighting only in telling their audience off. Most of the former turn into the latter under the yoke of publishers who only see them as a means to sell advertising while squeezing them for every penny of budget. The rest takes flight and becomes successful writing books or in other endeavors, reinforcing the cycle of envy for those left behind. And I say that as someone who has worked in the profession for over a decade.

  7. John Coleman says:

    Dr. Dyson is a hero of mine. However, his media comment calls for some input from a man who has been in the television news media for 60 years.

    At it’s peak during the 70’s through the 90’s the TV media was not lazy. There were some solid science reporters. However, the Management above them was all most universally politically liberal motivated in all judgements. Global Warming came to the media via Al Gore and that was the “ballgame”. Whatever this leading liberal said was taken as absolute and any efforts by science reporters to balance coverage were rejected.

    As TV began to decline in 2000 and after, science reporters were among the first to be eleminated. The liberal bias, for the most part, continued and their were no people and no money to explore scientific issues. In the meantime the Al Gore position had been accepted by all important scientific organizations and the Federal research dollars were producing a steady stream of pro Global Warming papers. The “lazy” and biased media accepted them without any doubt in their correctness.

    In this internet and smart phone dominated time, the lazy and biased media is losing its power. Now a more balanced presentation of the issues is available thanks to WUWT and other fine internet blog sites. The special presentationsw are there on You Tube as well. A new survey has found that 37% of Americans are now skeptical of Global Warming. There is hope. We skeptics need to continue to make our case as professionally and in as scientifically sound manner as we can.

    Dr Dyson, we old men should not give up.

  8. DougS says:

    Oh the truth hurts! The CAGW religion is failing along with the hopes and dreams of the false prophets who peddle their special brand of snake oil. May the liars and cheats suffer the same fate as the poor disadvantaged people who have suffered and died as a result of cruel energy policies.

  9. Peter Stroud says:

    So good to hear the views of a real scientist. Trouble is, our politicians think he is the chap who invented the bagless vacuum cleaner.

  10. cui bono says:

    My hero in science for many decades. A giant, fair and imaginative intellect now under attack from farcical anthropophagian midgets.

  11. klem says:

    Dyson is my hero. I first heard about him when he was hired by NASA to investigate the Challenger disaster in the late 1980’s. They hired him because they knew he’d find the cause of the disaster and he wouldn’t sugar coat the findings. And that’s exactly what he did.

  12. Jimbo says:

    Warmists have often told me that we can’t carry out an experiment to see if AGW is valid as we don’t have 2 Earths. They can’t see the Wood For The Trees.

    …..the University of Reading in Great Britain that showed global temperatures were flat between 2000 and 2010 — even though we humans poured record amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere during that decade.

  13. Latitude says:

    ..and yet, no one questions why CO2 levels were so low, and stayed so low, to begin with…..

    for the dimwits, there’s a reason, and it’s not a good one

  14. TRM says:

    “They’re absolutely lousy,” he said of American journalists. “That’s true also in Europe. I don’t know why they’ve been brainwashed.”

    When 5 people control 95%+ of the media it is not a stretch to think in terms of top down “editorial parameters” that must be followed. So do those 5 people have a vested interest in the warmista religion?

  15. Caleb says:

    It is wonderful when the old and wise share their wisdom, but not all respect their elders. Some Alarmists will simply sneer, “He is old; what does he know about new stuff?” What I’d really like to see is more and more young scientists displaying the courage (and risk to their careers) that the old and wise are displaying. Have the young no guts? (That’s a challenge, in case you wondered.)

    Oh, and by the way, the science is NOT settled.

  16. dp says:

    Who are you going to believe – an old crank like Dyson or a stellar young genius like Michael Mann?

    If I don’t add /sarc there are those who will miss the fissionable sarcasm in that statement.

  17. Mark Buehner says:

    Great article. Only mistake was missing Feynman’s tenure as most brilliant living physicist.

  18. Resourceguy says:

    Wow, I got two quotes out of this one post to add to my personal Great Quotes list. Thank you Prof. Dyson and Prof. Harper. My other quotes are from Ghandi, Churchill, Ben Franklin, Keynes, and Bertrand Russell….I love this science blog site.

  19. andrewmharding says:

    To show how uncivil this crowd can get, Happer e-mailed me an article about an Australian professor who proposes — quite seriously — the death penalty for heretics such as Dyson. As did Galileo, they can get a reprieve if they recant.
    That really does say it all about the Warmist crowd doesn’t it? What is scientific about views like that?

  20. But that approach lost out to the computer-modeling approach favored by climate scientists. And that approach was flawed from the beginning,

    But? I thought Mosher kept telling us to trust their models and algorithms, even when real world data disagreed?

  21. alacran says:

    Was it Fermi or Bethe who said: “Give me four variables and I’ll let an elephant appear, give me five and he will wag with his trunk!” ?? R.Feynman told it in one of his popular books!

  22. dfbaskwill says:

    Did Richard Feynman ever opine on the subject of AGW or climate change? I would be interested to hear some of that.

  23. When one of the popular press skeptic organizations gives climate science a fair going over instead of dropping steaming warmist dogma in their readers’ laps, then all will know the end is at hand. BWAHAHAHAHAHA.

  24. JCrew says:

    Unsurprisingly, the more pure scientists I meet on each side and in between, the more I see who is the most open, investigative, and carry the most common sense about the CO2 issue.

  25. A “Civil Heretic”? Oh, that was the kind article! There was this piece in the Atlantic a few years ago which more accurately expresses what the AGW fanatics really though of Prof. Dyson:

    “In the range of his genius, Freeman Dyson is heir to Einstein—a visionary who has reshaped thinking in fields from math to astrophysics to medicine, and who has conceived nuclear-propelled spaceships designed to transport human colonists to distant planets. And yet on the matter of global warming he is, as an outspoken skeptic, dead wrong: wrong on the facts, wrong on the science. How could someone as smart as Dyson be so dumb about the environment? The answer lies in his almost religious faith in the power of man and science to bring nature to heel. “
    —————

    How could someone as smart as Dyson be so dumb about the environment?….

    Really???

    That really pissed me off when I read it. Apparently though, Dyson really didn’t care what this “journalist”, or what anyone else thought. He is indeed the smarter, wiser man, than his critics.

  26. _Jim says:

    Money quotes (from the article):

    “It’s certainly true that carbon dioxide is good for vegetation,” Dyson said. “About 15 percent of agricultural yields are due to CO-2 we put in the atmosphere. From that point of view, it’s a real plus to burn coal and oil.”

    In fact, there’s more solid evidence for the beneficial effects of CO-2 than the negative effects, he said. So why does the public hear only one side of this debate? Because the media do an awful job of reporting it.

    “They’re absolutely lousy,” he said of American journalists. “That’s true also in Europe. I don’t know why they’ve been brainwashed.”

  27. sparky says:

    I like the way freeman identified the rationale behind cagw believers ( the need to feel more virtuous than non believers ). he made it sound like a psychiatric disorder. I wonder if we could find a tame sociologist and funding for some research into the validity of this observation with online surveys perhaps ?

  28. _Jim says:

    Paul Homewood says April 5, 2013 at 11:25 am

    But? I thought Mosher kept telling us to trust their models and algorithms, even when real world data disagreed?

    Maybe Mosher needs to be ‘modeled'; include incorporation of facilities or provisions to ‘project’ forward regarding sanity as well as validity of future argument …

    .

  29. Tilo Reber says:

    “There are people who just need a cause that’s bigger than themselves,” said Happer. “Then they can feel virtuous and say other people are not virtuous.”

    I’ve been explaining this point on web comments and blogs for years. Nice to have someone smarter than me put it out there as well.

  30. John W. Garrett says:

    What would we do without savants like Freeman Dyson? Beholden to no one and commanding the deserved admiration and respect arising from true scientific accomplishment, this is a statement that should be broadcast far and wide.

  31. Milwaukee Bob says:

    Computers are great for analyzing what happened in the past…
    ONLY IF the data being fed into them is accurate/correct AND meaningful to the process they are analyzing! Otherwise they are nothing more than a cheap boat anchor!
    AND, as for these so-called climate scientists, how absolutely self-aggrandizing and morally corrupt is it for a human to program a computer to run a human designed process (full of fudge or not) and then glorify the results – “by consensus” – BECAUSE it’s a computer model. Talk about fudge! …. and where did I put those last pieces of fudge….?

  32. David L. Hagen says:

    Dyson Freeman is a classic real scientist:
    “There is more carbon in the vegetation than in the atmosphere – understand the vegetation first”
    He notes recent experimentation a high correlation between vertical air flow and CO2 flux.
    e.g., CO2 going into the ground in Mass, Brazil, coming out in Canada.
    We do not have detail on CO2 flux in/out of ground on global scale.

    Stratospheric cooling much greater than global warming. A direct effect of CO2. That immediately affects the ozone.

    Freeman Dyson, The Wet Sahara, earth warmer 6000 years ago than now
    Herd paintings show the Sahara was wet 6000 years ago. Deciduous forests in Europe. Trees in valleys in Switzerland now filled with glaciers. 6000 years ago was the warmest period of the last 12,000 years.
    If we put more CO2 in the atmosphere will we arrive at a wet climate?
    Is that more preferable then today’s dry climate?

    See also Dyson Freeman global warming on youtube

  33. Robertv says:

    A great human a great scientist a great personality all joint in a humble but strong man looking for truth in a dark world. A world in a universe we just are starting to understand.
    Earth is so small in a solar system with forces we don’t comprehend. Just to ignore that these forces control our world is beyond any logic.

  34. tadchem says:

    Another beneficial aspect of putting CO2 from fossil fuels into the air is that the carbon from fossil fuels is not radioactive – unlike the atmospheric carbon that is exposed to a constant supply of radioactive carbon-14 from the interactions of cosmic rays and the nitrogen in the atmosphere. Oak Ridge National Laboratory reports CO2 from fossil fuels is diluting the radioactive carbon in the air:
    http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ndp057/ndp057.htm
    The concern about radioactive carbon-14 is that plants (and food animals that eat plants) incorporate it into our food. Our bodies incorporate C-14 from our food directly into our DNA, and when C-14 atoms in our DNA undergo radioactive decay, there is a 100% chance (!) of genetic damage, which contributes to mutations and cancer.
    Diluting the C-14 in the air with fossil fuel emissions reduces the C-14 concentration in our food, our bodies, and our DNA.
    Less radioactivity in our bodies is a *good* thing.

  35. Laurie Bowen says:

    Snake oil Baron: Could you explain (define) this for me. “Turing Palaver Into Gold Through Alchemy”. Or did I fall for some GIGO joke. Don’t mean to be a troll but, red herring hunting is how I put some things in perspective. Lets say, I know some humans who couldn’t pass a “Turing test” . . . . .a test of a machine’s ability to exhibit intelligent behavior equivalent to, or indistinguishable from, that of an actual human.

  36. John Whitman says:

    Paul Mulshine, in The Star Ledger via the GWPF, said:

    {Note: bold emphasis by me – John Whitman}

    That research [ that Dyson was involved with at Oak Ridge ], which involved scientists from many disciplines, was based on experimentation. The scientists studied such questions as how atmospheric carbon dioxide interacts with plant life and the role of clouds in warming.

    But that approach lost out to the computer-modeling approach favored by climate scientists. And that approach was flawed from the beginning, Dyson said.

    “I just think they don’t understand the climate,” he [Dyson] said of climatologists. “Their computer models are full of fudge factors.”

    Yet we are advised even by some skeptics cum lukewarmers that relevant climate experimentation outside of the in-situ Earth-Atmosheric System (e.g., in labs) is not realistically achievable. Even some skeptic cum lukewarmers say climate science is essentially observational, not experimental.

    Dyson, as an ardent skeptic, thinks those skeptics cum lukewarmers are wrong about futility of climate phenomena experiments.

    I suggest we divert a significant amount the obviously wasted funding currently used on models to a actual experimentation a la Dyson’s position..

    John

  37. climatebeagle says:

    dfbaskwill says:
    April 5, 2013 at 11:28 am
    Did Richard Feynman ever opine on the subject of AGW or climate change?

    I find it interesting that the rise of the CAGW “science” occurred just after Richard Feynman’s death. Would it have gained such a hold on the scientific community had he been around to critique it?

  38. dabbio says:

    sparky, how about Lewandowsky?

  39. OldWeirdHarold says:

    “I know why: They’re lazy. Instead of digging into the details, most journalists are content to repeat that mantra about “consensus” among climate scientists.”

    Actually, most journalists are content to pull the Greenpeace guy’s card out of their Rolodex, and get all their ‘facts’ from their ‘experts’, and call it a day. It’s a different kind of lazy.

  40. stricq says:

    Dr. Dyson came up with the concept of the Dyson Sphere. That was the first thing I thought of when I saw the article title. This concept has inspired some really great SciFi. He is indeed someone to be admired. Glad I’m on the same side as him.

  41. dabbio says:

    dfbaskwill, I don’t know that Richard Feynman ever commented on climatology, but he did have some choice words to say about social science. I suggest that you substitute CAGW for social science in this little bit, with which you may be familiar: http://youtu.be/IaO69CF5mbY

  42. Russ says:

    Reblogged this on If You Voted For It — You Own It and commented:
    I have been writing about the climate modeling fudge factors for years and now one of the smartest men on the planet reports that climate models are “full of fudge factors.” I have been vindicated!

  43. cd says:

    Without sounding too pretentious – I hope – Dyson is not just a great scientist he is a great man. He speaks what he believes irrespective of what the current fashion in science is, whether it be climate change, God etc. As a scientist he draws his conclusions from evidence; always dividing his only world view from what observations show him.

    What a great chap!

  44. atarsinc says:

    John Parsons AKA atarsinc

    klem says:
    April 5, 2013 at 11:02 am

    Richard Feynman was the physicist that had the insight as to the cause of The Challenger Disaster, not Freeman Dyson. JP

  45. Frederick Michael says:

    It’s no wonder the alarmists are in snit. Just think how close they came to being permanent super-heroes. Had we jumped through the hoops Kyoto commanded, they would now be taking credit for the subsequent lack of warming.

    They might have even won a Nobel Peace prize!

  46. Bernie Hutchins says:

    Here are two quotes from Dyson, which I have treasured over the years and shared when I got the chance. Nothing to do with climate, except as the second one is likely to increase the moisture level in your eyes – just a bit. A truly great man.

    *****************************************************************************************************
    Freeman Dyson in “Disturbing the Universe” (Basic Books, 1979) on becoming a (Naturalized) US citizen.

    On Page 131
    “By that time I had finally become an American citizen. The decision to abjure my allegiance to Queen Elizabeth might have been a difficult one, but the Queen’s ministers made it easy for me. An official lady in the Queen’s Foreign Office decided that my children were illegitimate according to British law. They were therefore not British subjects and not entitled to receive British passports. As a consequence of her decision, my family for a while consisted of five people with five different nationalities, one British, one German, one Swiss, one American and one stateless. Traveling around Europe with a stateless child is no joke. So it was with considerable relief that I went to the courthouse in Trenton and said the magic words that released me from dependence on any foreign prince or potentate. Bastards or not, the U.S.A. would at least give my children passports.”

    Then on Page 135
    “On the Fourth of July I went with my wife and our two youngest children to watch the fireworks on the Ellipse behind the White House. A big crowd was there, predominantly black, sitting on the grass waiting for the show. We sat down among them. Our children were soon running around with the others. Then came the fireworks. After the official fireworks were over, the crowd was allowed to let off unofficial fireworks. Everyone seemed to have brought something. The black children all had little rockets or Catherine wheels or sparklers and were shouting with joy as they blazed away. Only our children were quiet and sad because we had not brought anything for them. But suddenly one of the black children came up to us and gave our children a fistful of sparklers so they could join in the fun. That moment, rather than the ceremony in Trenton, was the true beginning of my citizenship. It was then that I knew for sure we were at home in America.”

  47. Simon says:

    Seems to me on reading about Freeman Dyson that he believes in AGW, but like many here he thinks the dangers are overstated. He is also quite rightly saying that we should give all sides the chance to state their case free from ridicule.

    It got me reading about other very clever people who don’t work in the field who have a bit to say. Stephen Hawking is very vocal in the other direction…

    “As scientists, we understand the dangers of nuclear weapons and their devastating effects, and we are learning how human activities and technologies are affecting climate systems in ways that may forever change life on Earth. As citizens of the world, we have a duty to alert the public to the unnecessary risks that we live with every day, and to the perils we foresee if governments and societies do not take action now to render nuclear weapons obsolete and to prevent further climate change… There’s a realization that we are changing our climate for the worse. That would have catastrophic effects. Although the threat is not as dire as that of nuclear weapons right now, in the long term we are looking at a serious threat.”

    “The danger is that global warming may become self-sustaining, if it has not done so already. The melting of the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps reduces the fraction of solar energy reflected back into space, and so increases the temperature further. Climate change may kill off the Amazon and other rain forests, and so eliminate once one of the main ways in which carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere. The rise in sea temperature may trigger the release of large quantities of carbon dioxide, trapped as hydrides on the ocean floor. Both these phenomena would increase the greenhouse effect, and so global warming further. We have to reverse global warming urgently, if we still can. ”

    All very interesting. Who to believe… or to give more weight? That’s the question. It’s a funny thing about this whole argument. No one is going t be 100% correct, so it’s more a case of who is going to be most right?

  48. Stephen Skinner says:

    If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn’t thinking.
    George S. Patton

    Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.
    Nikola Tesla

  49. dbstealey says:

    Excellent article. [And thanks to Simon for those quotes.]

    Dyson says: “I think any good scientist ought to be a skeptic”. It appears that none of those scientists promoting the CO2=CAGW conjecture are good scientists. None of them. They are not skeptics. Rather, they have their conclusion in mind, and they are trying to justify it with always-inaccurate computer models, with cherry-picked regional weather changes, and, always, vague with hand-waving.

    Dyson states: “Atmospheric CO2 may actually be improving the environment.”

    Agree wholeheartedly. There is ample evidence for that view, while there is no evidence of global harm from the rise in CO2 — which is, after all, still a tiny, beneficial trace gas essential to all life in earth.

    Here is Dyson explaining his views on global warming and carbon dioxide.

  50. Dan in California says:

    klem says: April 5, 2013 at 11:02 am
    Dyson is my hero. I first heard about him when he was hired by NASA to investigate the Challenger disaster in the late 1980′s. They hired him because they knew he’d find the cause of the disaster and he wouldn’t sugar coat the findings. And that’s exactly what he did.
    ——————————————————
    I have volumes 1, 2, and 3 of the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident (Rogers Commission report). I don’t see Dr Dyson among the signatories. Perhaps you are referring to Richard Feynman, another great physicist.

  51. Sparks says:

    Yeah, that’s all very well and good but where is he now? Just kidding… Freeman Dyson is great!

  52. Spyral says:

    Pheew…this article made me feel sane…

  53. George Steiner says:

    The fellow with the parameters and the elephant was John von Neumann.

  54. david elder, australia says:

    Who is the Australian professor who wants ‘sceptics’ put to death? Look at my address below and you’ll see why I ask. Maybe the heat got to him … You’d think my beloved country had enough nutters in it thanks to the appearance here of Peter Singer who thinks you can kill ‘abnormal’ babies (yes, babies, outside the mother’s womb). I was an abnormal baby by the way.

  55. Bill Bethard says:

    Re: Alacran, 11:27am

    Johnny von Neumann, but it’s complicated:

    “Attributed to von Neumann by Enrico Fermi, as quoted by Freeman Dyson in “A meeting with Enrico Fermi” in Nature 427 (22 January 2004) p. 297″
    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann

  56. A.D. Everard says:

    dp says:
    April 5, 2013 at 11:10 am

    Who are you going to believe – an old crank like Dyson or a stellar young genius like Michael Mann?

    If I don’t add /sarc there are those who will miss the fissionable sarcasm in that statement.

    *

    Soup, this time. This time I nearly sprayed my monitor with soup!

  57. Lars P. says:

    He is so right:

    “I just think they don’t understand the climate,” he said of climatologists. “Their computer models are full of fudge factors.”

    A major fudge factor concerns the role of clouds. The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide on its own is limited. To get to the apocalyptic projections trumpeted by Al Gore and company, the models have to include assumptions that CO-2 will cause clouds to form in a way that produces more warming.

    “The models are extremely oversimplified,” he said. “They don’t represent the clouds in detail at all. They simply use a fudge factor to represent the clouds.”

    This is why models cannot even hindcast past climate variations. They treat the atmosphere between the surface and the top of the atmosphere where the radiation leaves the Earth as a constant. Which it is not. It is exactly here, through variations of the heat transfer, that huge variations in climate may happen and may explain the Bond events

    “There are people who just need a cause that’s bigger than themselves,” said Happer. “Then they can feel virtuous and say other people are not virtuous.”

    yes, we meet them again and again trolling around…and not only…

    “It’s certainly true that carbon dioxide is good for vegetation,” Dyson said. “About 15 percent of agricultural yields are due to CO2 we put in the atmosphere. From that point of view, it’s a real plus to burn coal and oil.”

    And considering we are 7 billion on this world that makes food for over 1 billion humans. That is what that 15% is.

  58. Manfred says:

    Thank you. A privilege indeed to read Dyson’s comments and of particular interest because the man has also been involved in climate related science.

    ‘Simon’ (12:51) states ‘Stephen Hawking is very vocal in the other direction…’
    What direction is that?
    Hawking provides a rambling paragraph replete with ‘may’ this and ‘may’ that. The Polar Ice Caps may disappear, along with the Amazonian Rain Forest, in some runaway Climageddon. Simon finds this ‘interesting’ and wonders (rhetorically one hopes) whom to believe: Dyson or Hawking? Does he really need to pose this question or is this a good example of post modern posturing?
    The answer Simon, is neither. It is instead, the science.
    Exposure at this site and others like it, to the science and discussion, could furnish one with sufficient awareness of the evidence to lead one to confidently reject the Hawking ramble as just that. Hawking’s ramble is neither ‘interesting’ or ‘weighty’ in my view. You end by stating: ‘It’s a funny thing about this whole argument. No one is going to be 100% correct, so it’s more a case of who is going to be most right?’ No. The empirical evidence together with a growing understanding of factors that may influence global temperature, make it a 100% dead cert. that anthropogenic CO2 emission will not lead to catastrophic (runaway) global warming.

    It is neither funny nor is it a case relativism. Take a trip to the North of England and visit an impoverished household whose stark choice is either food or electricity. Policies founded on arguments by authority based on post modern science do not lead to lead to a flourishing world.

  59. ggoodknight says:

    Let us remember warmist ‘science historian’ Naomi Oreskes’ denigration of Freeman Dyson as being old, past his prime, lonely and just wanting attention, at an LA Book Fair covered by CSPAN, in reminder that it’s OK to denounce someone’s views based on their age (on national TV, no less) if they aren’t politically correct.

    Somehow, I just don’t see Dyson ever getting so old as to drop to Oreskes’ level.

    Oreskes’ Dyson remarks are at 50:55
    http://www.booktv.org/Watch/12447/2011+Los+Angeles+Times+Festival+of+Books+Panel+Inconvenient+Truths.aspx

  60. ntesdorf says:

    “They’re absolutely lousy,” he said of American journalists. “That’s true also in Europe. I don’t know why they’ve been brainwashed.”
    How delightful it is to read the words of an intelligent thinker for a change. Freeman Dyson is a true Hero.

  61. Mark Bofill says:

    pesadia says:
    April 5, 2013 at 12:27 pm
    ——-
    Parncutt! Yes I remember that … mmm .. person. Since we are reminded of Parncutt I think it only fitting to take a moment out in silence gratitude to and appreciation of Viscount Monckton of Brenchley’s, who’s successful efforts forced Parncutt to retract his hate screed.

  62. geran says:

    Simon says:
    April 5, 2013 at 12:51 pm

    Re: quotes from Hawking

    Even a great mind can be so confined that wisdom cannot be generated. Hawking cannot spend a week hiking in the mountains or swimming at the beach. His mind processes facts, like a computer, but the knowledge of life is missing.

    Do not be confused by layers of seemingly sophisticated science. Ask the “Warmist” the simple question, “If mankind is causing the planet to heat, why do the temperatures drop so drastically when the Sun goes down?”

    When you see the puzzled look on their face, you know you are talking to a mind full of facts with no ability to reason.

  63. alleagra says:

    John Coleman – “At it’s peak “. No, it’s “At its peak”.

  64. geohydro2011 says:

    .A) crops don’t always do better in the presence of ground level ozone as crop yields decline, B) crops can be destroyed by too much or too little moisture, and C) hear that about models. Sadly the empirical evidence does show increased air temperatures for many weather stations over the last 50 years.

  65. Gil R. says:

    Well, the first paragraph is partly wrong, in that at the Institute for Advanced STUDY Freeman Dyson’s responsibilities have not included teaching (other than informally). But that’s an understandable error.

    While on the topic of the Dyson family, John von Neumann, etc., I’ll share a book recommendation that will be of interest to more than a few. Last year i heard his son George Dyson give a fascinating talk about his book on the pioneering computer research conducted in the 1940’s and 1950’s at IAS, where many major breakthroughs — including the invention of RAM, as I recall — took place. I ended up buying the book for a friend, but did a bit of skimming on my own, and will thus vouch for it. http://www.amazon.com/Turings-Cathedral-Origins-Digital-Universe/dp/0375422773/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1365201182&sr=8-1&keywords=dyson+alan+turing

  66. Eugene says:

    Excellent post, Anthony! Cheers!

  67. Lars P. says:

    Simon says:
    April 5, 2013 at 12:51 pm
    “The danger is that global warming may become self-sustaining, if it has not done so already. The melting of the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps reduces the fraction of solar energy reflected back into space, and so increases the temperature further. Climate change may kill off the Amazon and other rain forests, and so eliminate once one of the main ways in which carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere. The rise in sea temperature may trigger the release of large quantities of carbon dioxide, trapped as hydrides on the ocean floor. Both these phenomena would increase the greenhouse effect, and so global warming further. We have to reverse global warming urgently, if we still can. ”

    Simon, the Holocene has been warmer then it is now between 10000 bc and 4000 bc. The arctic was completely thawned and no runaway global warming happened.
    It comes even better, the last 3-4 interglacials were all warmer then this one with a couple of degrees Celsius, and still no runaway global warming.

    Still better, the Arctic and the Antarctic were completely melted millions of years ago and the content of CO2 in the atmosphere was double or triple to that of today but no runaway global warming happened.
    On the contrary it is then, with double CO2 in the atmosphere that the Antarctic started to freeze. What mattered were the global ocean currents.

    If we go further in the Earth history we find CO2 values going up to 10-15 times and more the mere quantiities we see today. Still no runaway global warming.
    One of the coldest periods on Earth was when huge CO2 quantities were in the atmosphere.

    The Earth is not flat and the Arctic does not get the same insulation as the Tropic does only in stupid models and scenarios. Please go and search water reflexibility, maybe you still can find something in the Internet, but it gets more and more difficult to find real measurement data. At 5° it is about 90% if I correctly remember. At 10° still about 30%.
    But anyhow if with open unfrozen arctic & higher sun insulation the sea did not realease the CO2 and the methane, even with 3 times more CO2 in the atmosphere, therefore it will not start to do it now just to punish our sinns.

    Then please search a bit about Bond events, the 8200 event, the Younger Dryas and so on. You’ll see the climate was not stable, it had huge variations that cannot be explained by the greenhouse theory. This will certainly help against the fear of runaway global warming.

  68. atarsinc says:

    John Parsons AKA atarsinc

    geran says:
    April 5, 2013 at 2:48 pm

    ““If mankind is causing the planet to heat, why do the temperatures drop so drastically when the Sun goes down?”

    “The ‘puzzled look on their faces”, will be due to their wondering how someone could believe that the sun going down at night has something to due with Climate Change. JP

  69. HorshamBren says:

    Freeman Dyson was interviewed by a journalist called Steve Connor in February 2011

    During the course of the article – an exchange of emails between Connor and Professor Dyson – it became clear that Connor exhibited none of that quality suggested by the title of the publication – ‘The Independent’

    There were several gems from Professor Dyson, notably:

    “ … My impression is that the experts are deluded because they have been studying the details of climate models for 30 years and they come to believe the models are real. After 30 years they lose the ability to think outside the models. And it is normal for experts in a narrow area to think alike and develop a settled dogma.”

    “ … On a smaller scale, we have seen great harm done to poor people around the world by the conversion of maize from a food crop to an energy crop

    When Connor says, “It seems to me that although there are still many uncertainties, much of the science of climate change is pretty settled, more so than you will admit to”, Professor Dyson gives up in despair, saying,

    “The whole point of science is to encourage disagreement and keep an open mind. That is why I blame The Independent for seriously misleading your readers.”

    Professor Dyson was once asked whether there exists an integer such that when you take its final digit and move it to the front, its value will be doubled. He responded “Oh, that’s not difficult,” then, a couple of seconds later, “but of course the smallest such number is 18 digits long”

    This is why I’m more likely to be impressed by Professor Dyson’s arguments than those, say, of Michael Mann or Stephan Lewandowsky

  70. oldfossil says:

    Freeman Dyson on stratospheric cooling:

    “Stratosphere cooling is something we really know a lot about, because that’s easy to calculate. It’s a direct effect of carbon dioxide which cools the atmosphere just by radiation, independent of weather, and it’s very large. So that’s a measurable and known effect of carbon dioxide, which can be extremely serious because it immediately affects the ozone. When you cool the stratosphere that produces more ice crystals in the stratosphere and that has a very destructive effect on the ozone… That’s going to be a major disaster if we don’t do something about it.”

    Does this sound somewhat alarmist to anyone else besides me?

  71. troe says:

    We shouldn’t be suprised that Dyson and many other scientists were essentially pushed aside at places like Oak Ridge. There’s no chance that they would have knowingly supplied the thin patina of pseudo-science being sought by those holding the purse strings. During the last years of the Carter Administration nuclear and coal were going head-to-head to see who would replace oil as our primary fuel source for power generation. Billions were on the line. Nuclear could not compete on cost and then there was the messy unresolved problem of what to do with the waste. Enviromentalists favored renewables which simply weren’t viable. Coal won this fight on cost, nuclear went into the deep freeze, and renewables returned to the Whole Earth Catalog.

    The coal generation plants would need expensive upgrades in 30 years. AGW which came to public notice too late to influence the first round was in full roar for the current round which nuclear and renewables are winning. These people are skilled, patient, and they play for big stakes.

    A scientist of Dyson’s quality just won’t play ball. I know we have others here as well.

  72. u.k.(us) says:

    We’re in good company.

  73. Espen says:

    The “Australian” professor wouldn’t be the Austrian professor Richard Pamcutt, would it?

  74. cd says:

    uk

    I never thought about it like that; just imagine Dyson agrees with me… ;-)

  75. DesertYote says:

    Our civilization will not be great until we learn to harness 100% of the suns output.

  76. heysuess says:

    I’ve recently retired from a near-30 year career in newspaper editorial work, most of it in a manager/editor role. From my perch, there are certainly many problems in journalism. ‘Laziness’ is but one – though I wouldn’t call it ‘laziness’. Most journalists I’ve worked with are hardworking and sincere. Journalists are normal human beings whose simplest wish is to earn a living in a profession they love. However, a lot of newsrooms are unionized, and it necessarily follows that ‘start times’ and ‘finish times’ and ‘overtime’ and ‘job description’ are key workaday benchmarks, muddling benchmarks, in these workplaces; and when the factory whistle blows, like normal people, journalists want to go home, feed the kids, etc. (There are other problems, but that could be for another time.) At the top of the list, in my view, is a lack of ‘expertise’. Most journalists are generalists. They know how to construct a story, most often in a ‘pyramid style’, where a copy editor can cut from the bottom to make a story fit. A newsroom is in many respects a factory, folks. Unless they cover a beat, and that beat is related to their own personal interests in life, most journalists have little expertise in anything, certainly not something that requires the research and time of ‘global warming’, and must rely on the opinions of well-spoken and AVAILABLE experts. One or two successful calls made to ‘experts’ – at the university, in local government, a mouthpiece for a cause – for a quote and they can be ‘outta there’ and home to the kiddies. It would be my wish that local scientific skeptics, everywhere, would make themselves available and instantly quotable. Get your phone numbers out there. Get on tv. That’s what the other side is doing, through any number of fervent organizations, working at the local level. This is the way the game is played and those carrying the science forward as expressed on WUWT must learn to play it just as well, grassroots style. That includes calling your local editors by phone, as often as is required, to either redirect or complain or explain. Editors are always on the hunt for ‘follow-ups’ too. Sorry for the long post.

  77. Simon says:

    Lars P says “Simon says”
    Ummm … no I didn’t. It was a quote from Stephen Hawking. I am and never will be as sharp as he is.

  78. geran says:

    “The ‘puzzled look on their faces”, will be due to their wondering how someone could believe that the sun going down at night has something to due with Climate Change. JP
    >>>>>>>>>>
    Exactly my point! They will have no clue. They somehow don’t understand “It’s the Sun, stupid”.

    (Thanks for amplifying my comment.)

  79. ferdberple says:

    Jimbo says:
    April 5, 2013 at 11:02 am
    Warmists have often told me that we can’t carry out an experiment to see if AGW is valid as we don’t have 2 Earths.
    ============
    If you took 2 earths, identical in all respects, and ran the forward in time they would very quickly diverge. There would be storms on 1 earth and at the same location on the second clear skies. Over time one earth would be cooling while the other is warming, then for awhile they would move in sync, and then again out. The failure of the models exists because there is no “right” answer for the future.

  80. Reblogged this on tallagency and commented:
    Every story has two sides. Freeman Dyson and William Happer are two of the world’s leading physicists. When they speak it’s worth listening.

    Cheers Michael

  81. ferdberple says:

    Stephen Hawking is very vocal in the other direction…
    We have to reverse global warming urgently, if we still can.
    ===============
    temps have been flat for 15 years. hawking is suggesting we reverse this process. what is the reverse of “no change”? is he suggesting that we want temperatures to change?

  82. phlogiston says:

    A true and great scientist indeed. What we are now intoning on WUWT, Dyson said in the 70s right at the start of the AGW business. It was immediately obvious to Dyson that AGW and inductive model based climate simulation is transparently rubbish. He has been courageous and consistent in this position ever since – no band-wagon jumping – even while temperatures were sharply rising in the 90s, the high water mark of AGW. We are all standing on his shoulders.

  83. Theo Goodwin says:

    Simon says:
    April 5, 2013 at 12:51 pm

    “The danger is that global warming may become self-sustaining, if it has not done so already.”

    That statement expresses common, ordinary panic. All such statements should be treated as what they are, namely, wholly irrational.

    There is no imaginable mechanism through which global warming could become self-sustaining.

  84. Richard D says:

    @ hasuess….It’s not my job to train these biased, uneducated dumb-asses. I certainly wont buy their inane product, willingly.

  85. Dan in California says:

    DesertYote says: April 5, 2013 at 4:24 pm
    Our civilization will not be great until we learn to harness 100% of the suns output.
    ————————————————————-
    Are you waiting for someone to point out that Dr Dyson outlined how that could be done? Lots of SF readers know what a Dyson Sphere is. … more surface area than a Ringworld, and harder to build too.

  86. Dan in California says:

    Theo Goodwin says: April 5, 2013 at 5:10 pm

    Simon says:April 5, 2013 at 12:51 pm
    “The danger is that global warming may become self-sustaining, if it has not done so already.”

    That statement expresses common, ordinary panic. All such statements should be treated as what they are, namely, wholly irrational. There is no imaginable mechanism through which global warming could become self-sustaining.
    ——————————————————————————-
    A common alarmist refrain is “That’s what happened on Venus!” I admit I don’t have a good concise answer to that.

  87. heysuess says:

    Here is an example. A story written by a reporter working for The Canadian Press, which is Associated Press in the the north, a story now being repeated across Canada, by all news outlets. This is a straight up reporting job, pyramid style and the squeaky wheel gets heard Richard D whether you like it or not. Be the squeaky wheel. Otherwise, you forfeit the field to the opposition.
    http://www.canada.com/health/Group+concerned+about+climate+change+proposes+warning+labels/8197532/story.html

  88. Richard D says:

    Dan in California says: “Our civilization will not be great until we learn to harness 100% of the suns output.”
    April 5, 2013 at 5:25 pm

    Wow, I thought California schools are right up there with Mississippi, but you want a perfect heat engine that violates the first form of the second law of thermodynamics per Kelvin and Planck….really??? Now I know…

  89. Chris R. says:

    Funnily enough, Freeman Dyson is not “officially” a Ph. D. He graduated with a
    B.A. in mathematics, from Cambridge. I am quite sure by now he has been given
    honorary Ph.D.’s from many universities.

    I met him once. While a strong supporter of nuclear power, he is a fierce opponent
    of nuclear weapons. It’s probably apocryphal that his idea of using nuclear weapons
    for outer space propulsion–Project Orion–came about as his solution for what to do
    with all the excess nuclear weapons!

  90. Richard D says:

    @ heysuess says:
    April 5, 2013 at 5:39 pm

    Heysuess, I will look at this, thank you. My apologies, as my frustration is with a lot of the crap I read day in and day out…best to you.

  91. Bob Diaz says:

    RE: “I think any good scientist ought to be a skeptic,” Dyson said.

    That is really the art of good science; trust nothing, verify everything and continue to be open to other possibilities.

  92. Dan in California says:

    Richard D says: April 5, 2013 at 5:39 pm
    Dan in California says: “Our civilization will not be great until we learn to harness 100% of the suns output.”
    April 5, 2013 at 5:25 pm
    Wow, I thought California schools are right up there with Mississippi, but you want a perfect heat engine that violates the first form of the second law of thermodynamics per Kelvin and Planck….really??? Now I know…
    ——————————————————————
    I said no such thing. I was quoting DesertYote who was quoting Dyson. Harnessing 100% of the sun’s output has nothing to do with cycle efficiency of a putative heat engine, and Dyson’s statement infers no such thing. It is a reference to an advanced civilization that can capture more than the microscopically small fraction of radiation that falls on a tiny planet in its orbit about its star.

    Though it has no relevance to the thread, I do in fact have a well-grounded familiarity with Carnot efficiency and real-world attempts to approach it with Brayton, Stirling, Otto, Diesel, and other thermodynamic cycles. While I have been living in California for several years, my education is not from this state.

  93. At my http://cosy.com/y12/NewsLetter201212.html , which incidentally shows that for Venus’s surface temperature to be explained by the energy it receives from the sun , it would have to be 10 times as reflective in the IR as aluminum foil , I link to the “Most Brilliant talk I’ve seen in a long time : Freeman Dyson: Heretical Thoughts About Science and Society” : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xFLjUt2leM .

  94. Steve from Rockwood says:

    Hello Greenpeace? I’m doing a story on climate change. Oh? Ok. Do you have the number for the Sierra Club? Great! Thanks.

  95. Chad Jessup says:

    Simon, the difference in perspective between Dyson and Hawking is that Dyson, unlike Hawking, has investigated the subject matter and not relied upon the opinions of others.

  96. geohydro2011 says:

    Daily air temperature fluctuations on Earth are tempered by Earth’s atmosphere (as well as latent heat released by water and other surfaces)–these fluctuations would likely be more extreme in the absence of the atmosphere we depend on today. Solar radiation is necessary but not entirely sufficient to explain diurnal air temperature fluctuations–an atmosphere that re-radiates outgoing long wave radiation helps moderate air temperature.

  97. geohydro2011 says:

    Very recent research (abstract at http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198) shows that “…the planet today is warmer than it’s been during 70 to 80 percent of the last 11,300 years.”

  98. Chris Edwards says:

    While you are in the north of England, take a look at Hadrians wall, up there you will find the remains of a Roman winery, now it is heather moorland, and the warmists try to say its hotter now than then?? Anyone who can read and has a reasonable memory should reject this warmist tosh, Im pleased to read this post, we are in great company!

  99. Robert in Calgary says:

    Seriously geohydro2011,

    Have you been in a bubble the last few weeks?

    Marcott’s paper is in the toilet.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=marcott

  100. anna v says:

    geohydro2011:
    “…the planet today is warmer than it’s been during 70 to 80 percent of the last 11,300 years.”
    Another curve on the holocene temperature map?

    What else is new? And the curves show that what goes up must come down .

  101. gbaikie says:

    “andrewmharding says:
    April 5, 2013 at 11:19 am

    To show how uncivil this crowd can get, Happer e-mailed me an article about an Australian professor who proposes — quite seriously — the death penalty for heretics such as Dyson. As did Galileo, they can get a reprieve if they recant.
    That really does say it all about the Warmist crowd doesn’t it? What is scientific about views like that?”

    Nothing scientific about it, just the same as when some wanted Galileo tried as heretic.
    It’s not exactly anti-science. It’s not about science.
    It’s about the constant fear of any dictator [and the underlings] it’s about the
    fear of losing power.
    It’s controlling the message.
    Science may require freedom of speech, so it’s anti-science in that sense,
    but it’s anti-freedom of speech.
    It’s about protecting the totalitarian regime.

  102. geran says:

    geohydro2011 says:
    April 5, 2013 at 7:45 pm
    >>>>>>>>>>>>

    geo–send all your money to that cult. Hurry, the planet might boil soon!

    But, we know you are not that STUPID, right?

  103. Chad Jessup says:

    geohydro2011 – the authors of the study you link to now admit that their 20th century temperature statistics are not robust.

  104. RockyRoad says:

    geohydro2011 says:
    April 5, 2013 at 7:45 pm

    Very recent research (abstract at http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198) shows that “…the planet today is warmer than it’s been during 70 to 80 percent of the last 11,300 years.”

    And was the other 20-30% caused by man’s fossil fuel usage? Think about it.

    Rather makes them look like unthinking fools, doesn’t it?

  105. Infidel heretics like Freeman Dyson deserve all that they get. ;-)

  106. One of the biggest … problems with the Leftists is that instead of planting grass ….[they're] smoking it… no CO2 uptake there.

  107. John F. Hultquist says:

    @klem, atarsinc, Dan in CA, . . .

    There is a video of Richard Feynman demonstrating how the O-rings behaved when put into ice cold water. There is another video where he explains how he was alerted or shown this while visiting Morton Thiokol, the contractor. The second video says more about Feynman than the first.

    I just finished reading this:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/05/uninvented-history/

  108. atarsinc says:

    John Parsons AKA atarsinc

    Chad Jessup says:
    April 5, 2013 at 9:18 pm
    “geohydro2011 – the authors of the study you link to now admit that their 20th century temperature statistics are not robust.”

    “now admit”? It’s in the original paper. The fact that the methodology they used is not robust for the 20th century is utterly irrelevant. The 20th century is part of the era of direct measurement. Put two and two together.

    Robert in Calgary says:
    April 5, 2013 at 8:48 pm

    “…in the toilet…”? Hardly. Marcott, et al is the first (and so far only) effort to quantify the temperatures of the entire Holocene. So far, their results have not been refuted in any journal. If errors are found in their work in the future, it will only add to our knowledge of the Holocene. That’s Science. JP

  109. Jim Clarke says:

    The news media has a job to do, and that job, for the most part, is to deliver BAD news or scandal. Why? because bad news sells. This is a fundamental aspect of the present day media. Consequently, global warming is a great story. What could be better than “the end of life as we know it on a global scale”. Any reporter would love to get an expert to deliver such sound bites.

    Skeptical experts, on the other hand, are lousy story tellers with really bad sound bites. The skeptical message is that things aren’t so bad and maybe there is no issue here at all! BORING! If a reporter comes back into the newsroom with such a story, he can bet that story will not make it into the final product. In fact, it is considered a non-story from the start.

    Government officials believe they are there to solve problems. Reporters are there to talk about problems. Scientists are there to study problems. If there is no problem, all of these people will be disappointed and facing job insecurity. Is it any wonder that AGW has so much traction in all of these arenas, despite the obvious short-comings of the science?

    It is not a conspiracy. It is just the way the system is set up. Even without the dominant left-leaning thought that exists in most newsrooms, AGW would have more traction than it deserves.

    The media will come around when they realize that the obfuscation by the scientific community is a bigger story than non-existent climate change. It will be a great scandal that they will report with glee, even though they were complicit in generating the scandal. The ‘media’ has no conscious.

  110. atarsinc says:

    John Parsons AKA atarsinc

    John F. Hultquist says:
    April 5, 2013 at 10:14 pm
    John, Thank You. I remember the moment quite well. Remarkable to think that at that time Dr. Feynman was dying (and knew it). And yet he felt so strongly that the problem needed solving, for the sake of science, that he gave a good part of his final days to doing just that. JP

  111. Konrad says:

    Freeman Dyson raises a very important point about empirical experimentation. Empirical experiments are kryptonite to AGW believers, and they avoid them at all costs. Some will have seen Tyndal tube experiments with infrared cameras and containers of CO2 being heated with infrared lamps, but these experiments do not combine the radiative heating and cooling properties of CO2. Many readers here will remember the time Anthony replicated and totally trashed the CO2 “experiment” shown in Al Gores Twenty Four Hours of Tripe. So are there simple empirical experiments that could prove or disprove AGW? The answer is yes, and many WUWT readers should be able to replicate these for themselves.

    Experiment 1. Effect of incident LWIR on liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool.
    Incident LWIR can slow the cooling rate of materials. Climate scientists claim that DWLWIR has the same effect over oceans as it does over land, and this is shown in many Trenberthian energy budget cartoons. Does the ocean respond to DWLWIR the same way as land?

    – Build two water proof EPS foam cubes 150mm on a side and open at the top.
    – Position a 100mm square aluminium water block as LWIR source 25mm above each cube.
    – Position two small computer fans to blow a very light breeze between the foam cube and the water blocks.
    – Insert a probe thermometer with 0.1C resolution through the side of each cube 25mm below the top.
    – Continuously run 80C water through one water block and 1C water through the other.
    – Fill both EPS foam cubes to the top with 40C water an allow to cool for 30 min while recording temperatures.
    – Repeat the experiment with a thin LDPE film on the surface of the water in each cube to prevent evaporative cooling.

    Here is an early variant of this experiment in which IR from cooling water samples was reflected back to the water surface – http://i47.tinypic.com/694203.jpg

    Experiment 2. Radiative cooling properties of CO2
    CO2 can both absorb and radiate IR. Some of the energy CO2 is radiating to space is from intercepted outgoing IR from the Earths surface. Most of the net energy CO2 radiates to space is acquired from latent heat from condensing water vapour and conductive contact with the Earths surface. Could the radiation of energy from the atmosphere to space acquired by surface conduction or release of latent heat balance the energy intercepted from surface IR?

    – Build two EPS foam boxes 250 x 250mm and 100mm deep, open at the top.
    – Make a small 5mm hole in the bottom corner of each box to ensure constant pressure
    – Place an identically sized matt black 200 x 200 x 2mm aluminium target plate in the base of each box.
    – At one side of the interior of each box position a IR and SW shielded tube 200mm long containing a small circulation fan to cycle all the gas in the box through the tube.
    – Position a thermometer probe with 0.1C resolution in each tube.
    – Seal the top of each box with a frame double glazed with thin LDPE film.
    – At equal distances above each box position a 50w halogen light source with sealed glass face.
    – Use small computer fans to cool the glass face of each halogen globe to minimise LWIR emission.
    – Fill one box with air and the other with CO2
    – Wait for box temperatures to equalise then illuminate each target plate with the SW source.
    – Record gas temperatures during 30min of heating for each box.
    – Switch off the halogens and record gas temperatures during cooling.

    Here is image of equipment for experiment 2. Bike tyre inflater cartridges are an easy source of dry CO2 – http://i49.tinypic.com/34hcoqd.jpg

    Experiment 3. The role of energy loss in convective circulation.
    In describing convective circulation in the atmosphere the role of heating low in the atmosphere is often emphasised. Does cooling at altitude have an equally important role in convective circulation?
    – Get a large glass container of hot water and mix a ¼ teaspoon of finely ground cinnamon into it.
    – Wait until Brownian motion slows till the suspended particles are barely moving.
    – Now suspend a beer can full of ice water in the top 50mm of the hot water to one side of the clear container.
    – Observe any circulation patterns developing in the hot water.

    Experiment 4. Convective circulation and average temperature in a gas column.
    Most AGW calculations are for linear fluxes into and out of a static atmosphere. However the gases in our atmosphere move. Should these linear flux equations have been run iteratively on models with discrete moving air masses? The height of energy gain and loss in a gas column effects convective circulation. Does this effect the average temperature of a gas column?

    – Build two sealed EPS foam boxes, 1000mm wide, 200mm deep and 1000mm high.
    – Penetrate each box with a number of thin aluminium water heating and cooling tubes
    – In box 1 position heating tubes on the lower right hand side and cooling tubes on the upper left hand side. Keep the heating tubes as close to the lower interior surface as possible.
    – In box 2 position heating tubes on the lower right hand side and cooling tubes on the lower left hand side. Keep the heating and cooling tubes as close to the lower interior surface as possible.
    – Make small thermometer probe holes in the face of each box in a number of different horizontal and vertical positions.
    – Position 0.1C resolution thermometer probes in identical positions in each box.
    – Start 1C water running through the cooling tubes in each box and 80C water running through the heating tubes in each box at around 1 litre a min. Record temperatures over 30 min.
    – Cut water flow and equalise the temperature in each box. Reposition the thermometer probes and re run the experiment until a circulation pattern and average temperature can be obtained for each box.

    Here is a diagram of the initial experiment – http://i48.tinypic.com/124fry8.jpg and an image of a later small variant in which the strength of cooling can be altered at the top and bottom of the gas column – http://tinypic.com/r/15n0xuf/6

    Experiment 5. Surface to gas conductive flux in a gravity field.
    Climate scientists have claimed that under an atmosphere without radiative gases the radiative cooling of the surface will be greater (see also experiment 1). Does this mean the conductive cooling of the atmosphere in contact will be significantly higher? Is it correct to model the conductive flux between the atmosphere and the surface with the atmosphere modelled as a single body without moving gases?

    – build two small EPS foam tubes with internal volume 75 x 75mm by 200mm high open at one end.
    – For tube 1 cover the open top with LDPE film
    – For tube 2 cover the open base with LDPE film
    – on each tube attach a battery pack and a small 5V computer fan blowing across the outside of the cling film.
    – On tube 1 add small legs on one side to tilt it to around 5 degrees off vertical.
    – On tube 2 attach 50mm legs to allow its fan to move air freely across the cling wrap base
    – Make multiple thermometer probe entry points along each tube for K-type probes from a dual probe thermometer.
    – Place the thermometer probe position equal distance from the cling film for each tube.
    – Equalise the internal temperature of each tube to room temperature by turning each tube cling film down and running the fans for 15 minutes.
    – Now orientate the tubes so tube 1 has cling film at the top and tube 2 has cling film at the base.
    – Place them on a shelf in a refrigerator with the fans running and close the door with the thermometer units outside.
    – Use the probe differential button on the thermometer to observe the temperature differential between the tubes develop as they cool from room temperature over about 2 min.
    – Remove the tubes from the refrigerator and allow them to equalise to room temperature again, move the thermometers to new positions and repeat the cooling run. Do this a number of times to build up a picture of the temperature differential at various distances from the cling wrap in each tube at the 2 minute mark.

    Build the tubes small enough to fit within your refrigerator. If you have wire shelves, place a plate under each tube – http://oi49.tinypic.com/akcv0g.jpg

    Those that take the time to build an run these experiments as I have done will be able to answer the questions “Will adding radiative gases to the atmosphere reduce the atmospheres radiative cooling ability?” and “would our atmosphere be hotter or colder without radiative gases?”

  112. rogerknights says:

    heysuess says:
    April 5, 2013 at 4:30 pm

    I’ve recently retired from a near-30 year career in newspaper editorial work, most of it in a manager/editor role. From my perch, there are certainly many problems in journalism. … At the top of the list, in my view, is a lack of ‘expertise’.

    But graduates who’ve taken courses in “Environmental Journalism” are probably worse. (Who but an environmentally (over) sensitive person would take such courses? Who but an environmentally (over) sensitive professor would teach such courses?)

  113. DocBud says:

    Chris Edwards said:

    “While you are in the north of England, take a look at Hadrians wall, up there you will find the remains of a Roman winery, now it is heather moorland, and the warmists try to say its hotter now than then?? Anyone who can read and has a reasonable memory should reject this warmist tosh, Im pleased to read this post, we are in great company!”

    Hey, Chris, I can read and have a reasonable memory but it doesn’t go far enough back to remember drinking Chateau Hadrian’s Wall, or maybe that’s my problem, I drank too much of the stuff.

  114. Chad Jessup and Robert in Calgary:

    Debating with trolls is often a useful way to inform onlookers who can assess the arguments on both ‘sides’. But there is no possibility of rational debate with someone who lives in an alternative reality which only exists in his mind.

    Therefore, I write to respectfully suggest that you ignore the post addressed to you at April 5, 2013 at 10:32 pm from John Parsons AKA atarsinc.

    As his post to you illustrates, atarsinc ignores everything which does not support what he wants to believe.

    Indeed, Atarsinc has his own idea of what constitutes “climate” and disputes the official definitions. See
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/02/uah-global-temperature-report-march-2013-temperature-unchanged-from-february-2013/

    In that thread, David summarised the problem of engaging with atarsinc where he wrote to atarsinc at April 3, 2013 at 6:23 am saying

    your condesending lecture tone only makes your arrogance appear to exceed your ignorance, something I hardly thought possible.

    So, I strongly advise that his nonsense be ignored. Otherwise this thread will be completely derailed and provide nothing useful.

    Richard

  115. ThinkingScientist says:

    “Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication”
    Leonardo da Vinci

  116. goldminor says:

    I like Dyson,s view that ‘worldwide vegetation’ vs the atmosphere is the more important side of understanding co2 and it,s effects. With seventeen times more co2 that the atmosphere, couldn’t the slash and burn tactic in much of the equatorial forests be a major component of the steadily yearly increase of co2.

  117. Vince Causey says:

    Simon says,

    “It got me reading about other very clever people who don’t work in the field who have a bit to say. Stephen Hawking is very vocal in the other direction…”

    I would wager that Stephen Hawking has never read a paper on climate science, or any blog or any book. How could he? He is unable to hold a book or journal, much less turn the pages. Even operating a computer must be a herculean task, requiring the assistance of others.

    For Hawking to do any of these things would be like an able bodied person travelling round the world to personally talk to every climate scientist in person in order to get their opinions.

    Hawking must channel his enfeebled body into the one area that matters – theoretical physics and his beloved Grand Unified Theories. This absorbs his every effort (apart from the occasional forays into the Simpsons – but hey, even Hawking needs some amusement).

    How then, has Hawking formed the opinion that CAGW is real and is a problem that must be tackled? Hmm, tricky that. Could it be that he has simply restated what has been put out by the Royal Society, the Government scientists and the Met office?

    Of course. Why wouldn’t he? He trusts the scientific process and scientists.

    His trust however, is misplaced.

  118. alacran says:

    Thank you, George Steiner ! Didn’ t find the passage, where Feynman quotes
    John von Neumann’s joke about more than three parameters in experiments. Remembered only a connection with the Fermi group in Chicago.
    Now imagine those AGW-Computermodels, add one or two fudge factors and you can see the elephant even blowing the tune of “In The Mood”!

  119. Steve Jones says:

    Isn’t it easy to spot a genuine scientist telling the truth.

  120. knr says:

    ‘I think any good scientist ought to be a skeptic’
    True and this helps to confirm that Mann and ‘the Team’ are far from good or indeed any type of scientist .

  121. Philip Mulholland says:

    From the Economist article Climate science A sensitive matter:

    As a rule of thumb, global temperatures rise by about 1.5°C for each trillion tonnes of carbon put into the atmosphere.

    Some rule, some thumb.

  122. RobRoy says:

    “In fact, there’s more solid evidence for the beneficial effects of CO2 than the negative effects, he said. So why does the public hear only one side of this debate? Because the media do an awful job of reporting it….”
    I disagree. The “Media” have performed flawlessly. Their puppet masters, loosely known as “Progressives”, (Marxist/Socialist really.) are pleased.
    Their propaganda has been delivered.
    “They’re absolutely lousy,” he said of American journalists. “That’s true also in Europe. I don’t know why they’ve been brainwashed.”…
    Marxism depends on brainwashing.

  123. Juan Slayton says:

    Jim Clarke: The ‘media’ has no conscious.

    Not much conscience, either.
    : > )

  124. geohydro2011 says:

    Have not seen an effective refutation of Marcott et al–it is what it is. Mean global annual air temperature today is about to eclipse the air temperature variation maxima of the Holocene. But the Earth today should be cooling–for most of the Holocene we see that long term trend. But today we find that the mean global air temperature does is about to surpass the upper confidence level of the Holocene air temperature record–hard to explain this in terms of the usual Holocene actors, e.g., orbital, solar, volcanism, and so on. It could be human caused CO2 forcing.

  125. geohydro2011 says:

    Everything is a model. Your senses intercept radiation or pressure or chemical and the brain interprets those signals to recreate a model of what you sensed. Some models are better than others. More and more accurate data and better processing improve the accuracy of models. But even some of the CO2 forcing model simulations from the 1970s show a general upward trend in mean air temperature globally–something we see today in the air temperature record. Newer climate models are not showing cooling, rather they show warming from CO2 forcing.

  126. Oscar Bajner says:

    Philip Mulholland quoted from the Economist and nicely channeled Churchill:

    As a rule of thumb, global temperatures rise by about 1.5°C for each trillion tonnes of carbon put into the atmosphere.

    Now that quote, for me, neatly demonstrates the difference between rule of thumb; The use of an approximate measure, a perfectly acceptable practice among experienced artisans, artists and cooks. And thumbsuck; The use of a measure approximately, so beloved by
    politicians, economists and crooks.

    Lord Shiva and shiver me timbers, how many times do they have to be told: It’s the doubling, stupid!

    Freeman Dyson shells the nut, climate science is not yet a Science, it is long on theory and short on experimental support, it is presently Professional Opinion, and Obiter Dicta, and
    to dispute the opinion is to be a Heretic, I am happy to be so known. I am not happy to be
    labelled a denier, I try hard and honestly to contradict neither fact nor logic.

  127. Rod Everson says:

    Anthony on American journalists: “I know why: They’re lazy. Instead of digging into the details, most journalists are content to repeat that mantra about “consensus” among climate scientists.”

    Far, far too generous, Anthony. The industry is edited by far-leftists who would be perfectly at home, and willing workers, in Castro, Chavez, or Kirchner’s America, and they’ve mainly trained and promoted journalists of the same ilk, many of whom would be willing participants in a 1984-style re-writing of history to omit any inconvenient facts so as to facilitate the “disappearing” of all dissenters. Witness the lack of a journalistic response to the call for prominent skeptics to be, in effect, “disappeared.” Imagine the reaction of those same journalists if a prominent skeptic called for Al Gore to be…, well, you get the idea.

    REPLY: Actually those aren’t my words, but that of the writer of the excerpted article, read carefully – Anthony

  128. RockyRoad says:

    atarsinc says:
    April 5, 2013 at 10:32 pm
    John Parsons AKA atarsinc


    “…in the toilet…”? Hardly. Marcott, et al is the first (and so far only) effort to quantify the temperatures of the entire Holocene. So far, their results have not been refuted in any journal. If errors are found in their work in the future, it will only add to our knowledge of the Holocene. That’s Science. JP

    Several observations:

    1) “Climate Science” would have a better reputation if “The Team” would publish honest papers rather than intentionally obfuscate to support their agenda.

    2) Mann’s hockey stick was a complete fabrication (meaning it was a lie based on an algorithm that produces a hockey stick curve regardless of the input data–hey, why put any data in at all, huh?)

    3) You take the untenable position that even if falsified, Marcott will add to our knowledge? Oh, I forgot–you CAGW people push your agenda regardless of the truth or the quality of your information.

    I’d be embarassed to display the lack of integrity you’ve posted, Mr. Parsons. Let the public beware of such devious, nefarious thinking.

    You don’t really believe Science would publish any rebuke of Marcott et all, do you? No–it wouldn’t align with “The Team’s” agenda, would it? Have you already forgotten the vacuous FAQ Marcott et all just released? That’s (Junk) Climate Science, Mr. Parsons.

  129. _Jim says:

    geohydro2011 says April 6, 2013 at 7:24 am

    … But even some of the CO2 forcing model simulations from the 1970s show a general upward trend in mean air temperature globally–something we see today in the air temperature record.

    We do? (Where can I find this?)

    .

  130. geohydro2011 says:

    I am a sceptic–I am skeptical of the data, the process, the model, the interpretation for just about all I apprehend. Of late, of necessity, I am skeptical of human motivation–here both sides. My sense is that ‘deniers’ don’t want to be duped. Sadly the ad hom attacks switch off rational thought mostly and we revert to reptilian modes of action. Ad hom attacks are a fallacy–I just sweep them and the racoons off the back porch. Save your attacks on me. Engage in rational discourse.

  131. geohydro2011 says:

    Now Hansen et al have shown using empirical evidence vis-a-vis model simulation results that mean summer time air temperatures recently have increased such that greater areas of the land are warmer than would expected due to chance alone. I have not seen Dyson refute Marcott or Hansen. Dyson is a theorist–still it would be great to have him examine the empirical results of Marcott and or Hansen.

  132. _Jim says:

    geohydro2011 says April 6, 2013 at 7:24 am

    Everything is a model. Your senses intercept …

    Wrong, and then you begin to veer in a different direction …

    Have you heard of the human mind, are you aware of human senses? Are you able to differentiate between the two?

    Where might ‘models’ be operative in the human ‘cognitive’ system: in the mind or in the senses?

    Might the “senses” be inputs to the mind where interpretation of the ‘experience’ of the senses take place?

    .Yes or no, then explain.

    .

  133. _Jim says:

    geohydro2011 says April 6, 2013 at 8:00 am

    I am a … My sense is that ‘deniers’ …
    … Save your attacks on me. Engage in rational discourse.

    Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. (Off to a ‘mahvellous’ start I must say!)

    (Synopsis: Troll. Disingenuous. Probably 12 years old, as in: “On the internet no one knows you’re a dog”)

    Parenthetical information for reference only.

    .

  134. Theo Goodwin says:

    Dan in California says:
    April 5, 2013 at 5:28 pm

    “A common alarmist refrain is “That’s what happened on Venus!” I admit I don’t have a good concise answer to that.”

    I just told you the response. There is no mechanism for global warming on earth to become self-sustaining. I am not an elementary educator. You have to do some research on your own to fill in the details.

  135. geohydro2011 says:

    Einstein showed by way of general relativity that the present and the future are coeval–I suspect many readers here today would deny such results. If Einstein’s work is true, the 2nd law of thermodynamics stands to be refuted due to the implicit notion of the commonly accepted idea that time flows from now to a future state (t0 to t1) in it’s mathematical expression and conceptualization.

    [Reply: There are other terms beside 'deniers' that you can use. Read the site Policy. — mod.]

  136. AlexS says:

    “They’re absolutely lousy,” he said of American journalists. “That’s true also in Europe. I don’t know why they’ve been brainwashed.”
    I know why: They’re lazy. Instead of digging into the details, most journalists are content to repeat that mantra about “consensus” among climate scientists.”

    I have to disagree. Most journalists are lefties – socialists – they went to journalism to change the world and tell others how to behave, in short to be priests, indoctrinate, proselytize, not to tell news or real subjects. To change the world one needs to be a narcissist which is one of main characteristics of the lefties.
    This is what explains it:
    “There are people who just need a cause that’s bigger than themselves,” said Happer. “Then they can feel virtuous and say other people are not virtuous.”

  137. TomRude says:

    Meanwhile Mike MacCracken continues his shameless promotion of the IPCC on the yahoo group of fringe skeptics. The Director of the Climate Institute has of course little to offer, only a sugarcoated praise for the most wonderful enterprise that is called IPCC report. Obvioulsy this guy has never read Donna LaFramboise’s book… Take a look at the condescendence:

    “Regarding your comments, the IPCC chapters the authors write typically go through 3-4 reviews—to say they are not peer-reviewed is just not the case, they are likely the most peer-reviewed articles of any kind.

    As to the authors of chapters, the convening lead authors are chosen by the national member teams of each Working Group, so a selection process with a lot of consideration. Then they choose lead authors for particular sections. And then there are requests for input and based on participation and value of the contributions they choose contributing authors. In one of the assessments, I was invited to be a contributing author after writing an initial set of review comments suggesting so much reorganization and change that they invited me to be a contributing author—it is the value of the contribution.

    And the convening and lead authors are the ones in charge of the chapter—which is much like a review paper. The nations and reviewers can offer comments during the review process but not demand changes—the national members of the IPCC accept the chapter, meaning that it has properly gone through the required processes, which means several reviews overseen by an independent review editor (or editors) that are separately appointed.

    You other inferences are similarly inappropriate. The authors are not paid for this, and in many cases the authors are giving up time and opportunities to write papers and do the research that can earn grants—at least in the US, one does not get a grant for being an author nor a promotion in a university.

    Mike MacCracken”

    Sainthood is near for these authors… LOL

  138. Q: What can a climatologist bring to the table when Happer and Dyson talk climatology?

    A: Coffee.

    [lifted from another thread :-) ]

  139. geohydro2011 says:

    Often, we find that a system about to undergo a catastrophic change in state (from an unstable to more stable state) exhibits certain characteristics that can be statistically assayed looking at changes in variance or autocorrelation. Often there is a “critical slowing down” (meaning that it takes a longer amount for time for the system to return to stasis) in the data that sounds a tocsin of impending change–periodic air temperature measurements are one such data set that can be analyzed in such a manner.

  140. geohydro2011 says:

    I wonder what Dyson would think about the experiments that showed that crop yields dropped when exposed to 700 ppm co2 ambient air and elevated levels of ground level ozone (levels typically found in and near cities as well as at and near petroleum wells?

  141. David says:

    Konrad says:
    April 5, 2013 at 11:04 pm
    ———————————————————–
    Please share your results. I do not have the expertise to evaluate your experiments completely. However I have long been curious about the cooling affects of CO2 and the capacity, or lack thereof, of LWIR to warm the oceans. I also think you may need to determine what portion of the energy in various parts of the atmosphere is from conduction with the earths surface. I think it is clear that any GHG element recieving conducted energy would accerate cooling, (IE, reduce the residence time of said energy in earth’s atmosphere.)

  142. DirkH says:

    tadchem says:
    April 5, 2013 at 12:10 pm
    “Our bodies incorporate C-14 from our food directly into our DNA, and when C-14 atoms in our DNA undergo radioactive decay, there is a 100% chance (!) of genetic damage, which contributes to mutations and cancer.”

    The change of a C14 to a N surely creates a breakage in one of the strands of the DNA. But, as most of the times the two strands stick together, such a breakage can usually be repaired by using the redundant information from the second strand.

    An event like that should happen about once a second somewhere in the body of an adult. Obviously the vast majority of these events cause no harm.

  143. DirkH says:

    geohydro2011 says:
    April 6, 2013 at 7:24 am
    “Newer climate models are not showing cooling, rather they show warming from CO2 forcing.”

    Well, why would they give up. They earned fortunes with it and will try to continue with what worked for them in the past. The media has been under tight control in the past and will continue to play along. What event could disrupt this? A cooling? Oh please. It is easily explained away as local; Hansen or his successor fiddles a little with the temperature history to recreate the illusion of warming and off you go. Der Spiegel and NYT and BBC will give it the saintly touch of mainstream investigative journalistic truthfinding, and so it will be promoted to the shivering masses.

    The only event that can disrupt this well organized machine is the Keynesian endpoint; the reflationary inflection point, the running out of Other People’s Money. As we see in Japan it is coming… and as we see in Cyprus, they will not go silently into the night but when their system is falling apart they will take what they can take, where they find it, no matter to whom it belonged.

    CO2AGW is part of an all-devouring beast, the state.

  144. Don Allen says:

    Dyson has forgotten more science than Mann has ever learned.

  145. MattN says:

    When Dyson passes, the average IQ on Earth will drop notably…

  146. DirkH says:

    geohydro2011 says:
    April 6, 2013 at 8:01 am
    “Now Hansen et al have shown using empirical evidence vis-a-vis model simulation results that mean summer time air temperatures recently have increased such that greater areas of the land are warmer than would expected due to chance alone. I have not seen Dyson refute Marcott or Hansen. ”

    I don’t know what Hansen paper you are referring to, but usually Hansen and Schmidt compare some satellite measurement with a model. So that proves exactly nothing; they find that something is different from their model, so what, whatever conclusion they draw can easily be replaced by the much simpler assumption that the model is junk.

    Here’s a model for the global temperature anomaly in the absence of enhanced CO2.
    def temperatur(t):
    return 0.0

    It returns the global temperature anomaly for time t.
    Now let us assume that that model correctly describes the world in the absence of enhanced CO2 levels. Oh noes! Satellite measurements show something different! That must be the CO2, what else could it be?

    Can I get my funding now? Or better, let’s look, which fallacy is it that you describe? The argumentum ad…

    …ignorantiam – we cannot think of any other reason, so it must be CO2.

  147. DirkH says:

    geohydro2011 says:
    April 6, 2013 at 8:00 am
    “I am a sceptic–I am skeptical of the data, the process, the model, the interpretation for just about all I apprehend. ”

    You should be very skeptical of attempts at simulating a chaotic system into the year 2100. It helps to read up on the definition of “Chaos” in the wikipedia.

  148. Robert Austin says:

    geohydro2011 says:
    April 6, 2013 at 7:15 am

    “Have not seen an effective refutation of Marcott et al–it is what it is. Mean global annual air temperature today is about to eclipse the air temperature variation maxima of the Holocene.”

    Don’t be obtuse, geohydro. Marcott’s PhD thesis was what Marcott etal 2013 should have been. And you can’t deduce that today’s temperatures are about to eclipse historical Holocene temperatures because the Marcott resolution is too low to show any historical temperature spikes. Why does Marcott start precisely at the end of the Younger Dryas? Could it be because the reconstruction is of such low resolution that the younger Dryas would not even appear in a reconstruction if extended back to the start of the Holocene? Note how severely attenuated or non-existent are the Medieval, Roman, Mimoan warm periods in the Marcott reconstruction. Marcott is simply a very low frequency reconstruction of the Holocene that shows a slow cooling trend extending from the Holocene optimum to the mid 20th century. The inclusion of the sharp 20th century spike is a travesty and there is no possibility that Marcott etal were unaware of its spuriousness and its political implications.

  149. DirkH says:

    geohydro2011 says:
    April 6, 2013 at 7:15 am
    “Have not seen an effective refutation of Marcott et al–it is what it is. ”

    You haven’t looked far.
    http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/16/the-marcott-shakun-dating-service/#comments
    Notice that Shakun describes the uptick in the end as “not robust” in this video interview with Revkin:
    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/07/scientists-find-an-abrupt-warm-jog-after-a-very-long-cooling/#more-48664
    Basically I would say that Shakun refutes any claim of the uptick being real himself. Then merrily goes on talking as if it where. Neither Revkin nor Shakun ponder how this fits to the temperature plateau of the last 15 years. No deep thinkers the two of them obviously.

  150. Mike says:

    Reblogged this on This Got My Attention and commented:
    “Climatologists are no Einsteins,” says physicist Freeman Dyson.

  151. geohydro2011:

    I write to help you to correct your problem which has resulted in your obtaining what you call “ad hom. attacks”.

    Your post at April 6, 2013 at 8:00 am claims you are a “sceptic”, but the contents of your other posts suggest you are an AGW-believer. And people have been responding to that dichotomy.

    For example, your immediately subsequent post to the one where you claim to be a “sceptic” is at April 6, 2013 at 8:01 am and it says in total

    Now Hansen et al have shown using empirical evidence vis-a-vis model simulation results that mean summer time air temperatures recently have increased such that greater areas of the land are warmer than would expected due to chance alone. I have not seen Dyson refute Marcott or Hansen. Dyson is a theorist–still it would be great to have him examine the empirical results of Marcott and or Hansen.

    Let me explain the problem with that, geohydro2011.

    The denizens of WUWT are genuine sceptics. We adhere to the principle of
    Trust but verify.

    Therefore, we want to verify by checking the facts when some anonymous person (e.g. you) makes an unsubstantiated assertion that a dubious source (e.g. Hansen) has made an empirical finding. This is especially true when the cited source is infamous for having corrupted empirical data; e.g. see this
    http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/giss/hansen-giss-1940-1980.gif

    But we cannot verify your improbable assertion because you don’t provide a reference for it.

    You then go on to say you don’t know if Dyson has examined “Marcott or Hansen”. You don’t say what ‘work’ of Marcott and Hansen should have been “examined” by Dyson or why. In fact, Marcott has only had one publication and it has already been flushed where all similar matter goes. But Hansen has published much and done much which has been “examined” on WUWT and found to be wanting.

    Do you see the problem, geohydro2011?
    You claim to be a “sceptic” and your posts indicate you are not.
    Actions speak louder than words and what you call “ad hom. attacks” are the normal responses to people whose actions refute their claims about themselves.

    Richard

  152. geohydro2011 says:

    Without senses, the brain or mind, if you so desire, stands alone in isolation from the ‘external world’ or “other.” Berkeley, Locke, and others understood this.

  153. geohydro2011 says:

    Some seem confused as to the definition of informal fallacies such as ignoratio elenchi.

  154. geohydro2011 says:

    Kosso describes Einstein climbing with a friend when the topic of discourse during the climb turns to the nature of time–at that moment Einstein realizes that his friend does not understand general relativity at all. Difficult to understand why Dyson would exclaim that climate scientists are no Einsteins–that seems to be a prime example of fallacious reasoning.

  155. geohydro2011 says:

    some of my friends here succumb to the “Monte Hall” problem where given new and updated information, a Bayesian would indeed change their initial choice based on the new information. Staying the course makes sense for some, not so much for others.

  156. geohydro2011 says:

    climate is a long term record of weather–the current period of climate is statistically different from previous periods of climate. Land use and land cover changes effectuated by people have affected weather during the last few hundred years. Aerosols and greenhouse gases emitted by people have the capacity to affect weather.

  157. geohydro2011 says:

    I suppose if you are going to “moderate” or censor, or, rather, withhold a valid comment made–a comment that does not attack but rather informs–then I have nothing else to say as my argument has been unfairly hampered.

    [Reply: your comments are not being censored. — mod.]

  158. geohydro2011 says:

    Very nice. Ad hom attacks on Hawking are fallacious and do not add to knowledge or understanding. Some readers here have chose to issue ad hom attacks on me–some of those appear to an attempt at deduction but the conclusions are not supported by the information. Indeed, some of the conclusions are wrong and if your basis of reasoning is exemplified by your ad hoc attack on and wrong conclusions about me, I can easily see where you subscribe to other fallacies

  159. rw says:

    There’s also a simple behavioural test of whether geohydro-man is a warmist or a skeptic.

    As has often been demonstrated on this and other websites, one of the most obvious (and tedious) traits of the warmist or anti-skeptic is that he or she puts up posting after posting on a thread – as if he were trying to smother any counterarguments with the sheer volume of his output. (Anyone remember some classic examples from aphysicist?)

    So, based on that duck test, it’s pretty clear which side of the divide geohydro-man falls on.

    [Reply: endless, repeat commenting is called thread-bombing, and it violates site Policy. — mod.]

  160. dbstealey says:

    geohydro2011,

    Question: What would it take for you to admit that AGW is either falsified, or that it is such a minuscule effect that it can be completely disregarded for all practical purposes?

    Or is your mind made up and closed tight? If it is not, give us specific numbers. At what point does AGW cease to matter?

  161. geohydro2011:

    I am writing to ask you to reconsider your posts which are wasting space on the thread. I am reaching the conclusion that this waste of space is their intended purpose.

    At April 6, 2013 at 10:38 am I made a post which offered you advice on how to behave in a cogent manner on WUWT. Unfortunately for you, you have ignored that advice and posted a series of posts which are solely alarmist nonsense. For example, your post at April 6, 2013 at 11:05 am says in total

    climate is a long term record of weather–the current period of climate is statistically different from previous periods of climate. Land use and land cover changes effectuated by people have affected weather during the last few hundred years. Aerosols and greenhouse gases emitted by people have the capacity to affect weather.

    Your assertion that
    “the current period of climate is statistically different from previous periods of climate”
    Is a falsehood.

    The only demonstrably true statements in your post are
    “climate is a long term record of weather”
    and
    “Land use and land cover changes effectuated by people have affected weather during the last few hundred years”
    although these weather changes are only local – not global – effects and the statement is a trivial factoid.

    The other statement in your post is an assertion of improbable possibility;
    “Aerosols and greenhouse gases emitted by people have the capacity to affect weather.”
    And the assertion has no demonstrated importance.
    Pigs have the capacity to evolve wings and fly.

    Please stop your infantile and disruptive behaviour which is not appropriate here.

    Richard

  162. Chris says:

    Hallo watty! nice blog u have here. u should come over and take a look at my Dyson page:
    http://nextdoortostevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/04/06/here/
    Thanks buddy, and keep up the x l ent work.

  163. Chris says:

    Oh, and could you bring Steven with you? I’m still trying to find out why I’m a racist.

  164. dbstealey says:

    geohydro2011,

    You are avoiding my question: What would it take for you to admit that AGW is either falsified, or that it is such a minuscule effect that it can be completely disregarded for all practical purposes?

  165. geohydro2011 says:

    I periodically reassess my understanding of climate science. For example, I wonder about the effects of the “biotic pump” hypothesis. I suspect that for many others, they do not do this, rather they uphold Ptolemaic theory. I suspect there are structural differences in the minds of those that believe versus those that don’t. Still, there is a statistically significant difference in mean annual (and or seasonal) air temperature for the latest climate period for very many weather stations. The tocsin will be a change in sign and or increased variance in the signal.

  166. geohydro2011 says:

    I am not “thread bombing,” each comment is either a general reply to a previous post by some reader whom I would not identify publicly or it is new comment that stands alone.

  167. geohydro2011 says:

    On the issue of belief, my mind is not closed on this subject. Nay, it is some of the readers here that are so committed to an opinion that they will not or can not admit that there is evidence contrary to their belief. So rather than seek my approval of a refutation or affirmation, I suggest that you examine the evidence, apply the proper tests and affirm or refute. You can always come to a new understanding based on new data.

  168. dbstealey says:

    geohydro2011,

    So, you are not willing to say what it would take for you to admit that AGW is either falsified, or that it is such a minuscule forcing that it can be completely disregarded for all practical purposes.

    A mile of glacier ice could descend on Chicago as it did during the last great stadial, and you would still hold the position that AGW causes global warming. In your opinion, nothing could falsify AGW.

    Your mind is made up. Global warming is caused primarily by human activity. No further evidence is necessary. Got it.

    Scientific skeptics often encounter that type of religious belief here. No scientific evidence or measurements are necessary; belief is fully sufficient for the AGW religion. Or am I missing something?

  169. geohydro2011 says:

    Your comments reflect your belief system–not mine.

  170. DirkH says:

    geohydro2011 says:
    April 6, 2013 at 1:04 pm
    “On the issue of belief, my mind is not closed on this subject. Nay, it is some of the readers here that are so committed to an opinion that they will not or can not admit that there is evidence contrary to their belief. So rather than seek my approval of a refutation or affirmation, I suggest that you examine the evidence, ”

    The snow piles outside here in germany have nearly disappeared.
    During the warm 90ies we had winters that had no snow at all.
    I’ve examined a lot of that evidence this winter. Granted it didn’t come out of a computer program-. Notice I’m a programmer. I can make a computer perform any song and dance and when I find gullible people they might believe what I make the computer say. So I know what the government scientists are doing here.

  171. dbstealey says:

    geohydro2011,

    Science is about falsification. What, specifically, would it take to falsify your belief in AGW?

  172. DirkH says:

    geohydro2011,
    you maintain that you answer on comments by other people. You haven’t answered any of mine.
    You don’t have to. I just register it. I’d say you just give an endless series of baseless assertions of other people’s closed-mindedness.

    See, if it were warming, I would take the CO2AGW theory serious. Because that would tell me that these scientists could be on to something.

    If they had ever come up with a prediction (like Einstein) that were later acknowledged by real events, they would have a leg to stand on now. But they haven’t.

    It looks like they’re lying scoundrels who won’t admit that their theory is wrong; that they never properly factored in negative feedbacks, and that all their models err on the warm side.

    Given the largish influence Greenpeace and WWF have at the IPCC, this looks like a systematic problem. Therefore I maintain that it would be best to dissolve the existing climate science institutes, fire the lot of them, try to recover as much money as possible from them, and sell the supercomputers on EBay.

    And stamp every page of every paper from them with a big red FALSIFIED.

  173. Mark Bofill says:

    geohydro2011 says:
    April 6, 2013 at 1:04 pm

    On the issue of belief, my mind is not closed on this subject. Nay, it is some of the readers here that are so committed to an opinion that they will not or can not admit that there is evidence contrary to their belief. So rather than seek my approval of a refutation or affirmation, I suggest that you examine the evidence, apply the proper tests and affirm or refute. You can always come to a new understanding based on new data.
    ———————-
    Geo –
    Let me explain what Stealey is looking for by stating my own answer. What would it take for me to accept that mainstream / IPCC views regarding CO2 and AGW are correct? I would accept as correct just about any reasonable AGW theory that made useful and accurate predictions. By reasonable, I mean, don’t tell me fairies and unicorns are behind it. Don’t blatantly violate our understanding of physics either like the slayers do. I would never have bothered to go looking into the science in the first place, except that I’d heard dire warnings of pending temperature rises and flooding due to expected accelerations in sea level rise for literally my entire life that never manifested. Now that I have looked into it, I understand why.
    So, short and simple – if somebody ‘corrects’ the theory, and five, and ten, and fifteen years down the line the predictions made by the theory are confirmed by observations, I’ll be inclined to accept it.
    This is the sort of statement Stealey is asking you for, I believe. Specifics. What would it take to persuade you to change your position.
    Stealey, jump in and correct me if I’m wrong (I know you would anyway without being asked ;) )

  174. Moderators:

    I do not know if this is possible but ask that you try to discern if geohydro2011 is a bot.

    I, and I am sure others, would like to read opinion concerning Freeman Dyson, his work, life and views. Instead, the many and irrational posts from geohydro2011 are disrupting the thread.

    And those posts show every indication of being a computer program and not a person.

    Richard

  175. geohydro2011 says:

    Climate is a period of weather. A prolonged energy imbalance in the Earth’s climate system will lead to either warming (or cooling) as the case may be, but not stasis, in climate, or at least not stasis until a new equilibrium is achieved. Thus we find flux in air temperature and moisture, in this case, fluctuations in weather. It is what it is. Warming of the Arctic and melting of Arctic Sea ice has led to changes in the jet stream leading to the crazy weather we are seeing today. Still nothing that refutes the notion that climate is changing.

  176. DirkH says:

    geohydro2011 says:
    April 6, 2013 at 1:49 pm
    “Still nothing that refutes the notion that climate is changing.”

    Geohydro2011, nobody here denies that climate is changing. Didn’t you notice that? What most of us say is that climate change is not significantly influenced by anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Because there’s no evidence, no correlation, no successful prediction by the CO2AGW scientists.

    Glad that we have cleared that up. I don’t hink he’s a bot, BTW. Too few repetitions, too clean sentence structure.

    I think they are very frightened of Freeman Dyson. They know their scientists come in 5 sizes smaller. So that threadbomber should be seen as a compliment.

  177. dbstealey says:

    geohydro2011 says:

    “…melting of Arctic Sea ice…”

    Wrong. Global ice cover is now above its long term average [the red chart line]. The discussion is about global warming, therefore your argument fails.

    You say:

    “…the crazy weather we are seeing today. ”

    Wrong again. The Null Hypothesis has never been falsified, therefore what is observed today is in no way unusual or unprecedented. It has all happened before, and to a greater degree.

    Your comments are the product of a true believer’s mind, which is made up and closed tight. There is no room for counter evidence, because that causes cognitive dissonance.

    The fact is that nothing unusual is occuring. But you cannot admit that verifiable fact, because if you admit it your whole wild-eyed conjecture comes crashing down. You are not addressing science, you are merely being an advocate for your falsified belief system.

  178. DirkH says:

    geohydro2011 says:
    April 6, 2013 at 11:00 am
    “some of my friends here succumb to the “Monte Hall” problem where given new and updated information, a Bayesian would indeed change their initial choice based on the new information. ”

    Did you give anyone information? Now I can’t exclude that one of your dozens of comments contain information, but, I won’t read them all because the ones I saw were idiotic drivel. Please don’t take that as an ad hom attack. I use “idiotic” simply as a qualifier; slightly below “imbecilic”.

  179. DirkH says:

    An old post by ChiefIO about the wet Sahara / Sahara pump theory.

    Sahara Heat pump, Hotter Sahara = Wetter Sahara
    https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/08/10/cold-dry-sahara-hot-wet-savanna/

  180. Mark Bofill says:

    geohydro2011 says:
    April 6, 2013 at 1:49 pm

    …has led to changes in the jet stream leading to the crazy weather we are seeing today….
    ———-
    See Geo, this is not evidence. This is what we call around here hand waving. Do you have data to support your assertion that we’re seeing crazy weather? This site has resources in the reference section (see http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/climatic-phenomena-pages/extreme-weather-page/) that suggest that we are seeing nothing unusual in cyclones, tornadoes, precipitation, drought, snowfall, and so on.
    Data my friend. Back up your assertions if you want to be taken seriously here.

  181. mkelly says:

    Geohydro2011 says: “Still nothing that refutes the notion that climate is changing.”

    Did someone on WUWT ever say the climate was not changing? Most questions are why, how much, and in what direction.

  182. Lars P. says:

    Simon says:
    April 5, 2013 at 4:32 pm
    Lars P says “Simon says”
    Ummm … no I didn’t. It was a quote from Stephen Hawking. I am and never will be as sharp as he is.

    Of course not.
    And when the thoughts of a wise person are so easy to refute by anybody who has access to the information and wants to search for it, one asks himself to what information did he had access?

  183. Lars P. says:

    geohydro2011 says:
    April 6, 2013 at 11:05 am
    climate is a long term record of weather–the current period of climate is statistically different from previous periods of climate.
    Through what would it be statistically different from previous periods of climate?
    You seem to have the common “warmista” approach to deny any climatic variations before industrialisation. Believing there could be only slow very slow, very very slow changes of 0.1 degree per century with Milankovitch cycles and nothing else.
    Medieval Warm Period period is a good start if you want to learn for such changes:
    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.at/2012/11/new-papers-showing-medieval-warming.html
    The arctic had less ice 6000 years ago:
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081020095850.htm
    Greenland was populated in several waves which disappeared when the cold returned.
    http://climate4you.com/ClimateAndHistory.htm#General%C2%A0
    Try to read about the 8200 event – that was fast climatic change (btw. you see nothing of it in Marcotts paper as the proxies do not have resolutions for such fast changes: abrupt 3°C cooling over a period of 100 years:
    http://www.geo.arizona.edu/palynology/geos462/8200yrevent.html
    Read here about fast climate changes:
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/data4.html

  184. Robert of Ottawa says:

    John Coleman April 5, 2013 at 10:55 am

    Any future history of the Greatest Science Fraud of all time should include a deep analysis of the ideological basis of this scam, of the infection of academia by the left ideologues; how the left found enviromentalism (sic) via Gro Brundtland to be the salvation of their ideology after the fall of the Soviet Union.

    Don’t forget, these Watermelons still want to destroy capitalism, reverse civilization and make themselves arbiters of all human activity. i.e. Communism.

  185. Peter Gleick: Dyson’s position on #climate will forever tarnish and diminish his legacy. Smart people aren’t always smart about everything.

    I’m speechless.

  186. Lars P. says:

    atarsinc says:
    April 5, 2013 at 10:32 pm
    “…in the toilet…”? Hardly. Marcott, et al is the first (and so far only) effort to quantify the temperatures of the entire Holocene. So far, their results have not been refuted in any journal. If errors are found in their work in the future, it will only add to our knowledge of the Holocene. That’s Science. JP
    There have been many reconstructions of the Holocene, you can go wikipedia and see Marcott & all have brought nothing new to it.
    Their paper is missing any high variations as their proxies were not recording such – see 8200 event or other Bond events – such are missing completely in their study.
    So you smooth the whole history and then put a stick in the end? So yes, of course, the paper is in the toilet.
    What they brought new was the proxy hockey stick – which was shown to be an artifact.
    http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=4790

  187. The amusing thing about all this is that Dyson’s has a pretty mild interest in climate change and spends very little time on it. When I visited him last year he was reluctant to even talk much about it. His opinions on the topic have been blown way out of proportion by the media.

    By the Dyson himself has said that he finds the comparison with Einstein silly.

  188. I was looking for quotes on the topic of “failing better” the other day, and came across a dynamite one by his daughter, Esther.

    “Always make new mis­ta­kes.” [emphasis mine]

    So Freeman Dyson was on my mind for a few moments. It’s good to see that that brilliant man has weighed in with a cautionary nod to realism and the scientific method of data-driven truth-seeking, properly applied.

    Not the agenda-driven variety which is ever so much in vogue.

  189. I do not know if this is possible but ask that you try to discern if geohydro2011 is a bot.

    I, and I am sure others, would like to read opinion concerning Freeman Dyson, his work, life and views. Instead, the many and irrational posts from geohydro2011 are disrupting the thread.

    And those posts show every indication of being a computer program and not a person.

    I really object to the sly attempt to either get the moderators to censor a dissenter or to smear the dissenter and undermine his credibility through false means.

    You cannot surely have read his or her comments and concluded it is a “bot”. You disagree, fine.

    [Reply: no one is censoring geohydro2011 or anyone else here. — mod.]

  190. philincalifornia says:

    geohydro2011 says:
    April 6, 2013 at 1:04 pm
    On the issue of belief, my mind is not closed on this subject. Nay, it is some of the readers here that are so committed to an opinion that they will not or can not admit that there is evidence contrary to their belief.
    ====================================================

    Well, why don’t you post some then?

  191. dbstealey says:

    Geohydro2011 says: “Still nothing that refutes the notion that climate is changing.”

    AAARRGHH!! It is always the climate alarmist cult that believes the climate never changed prior to human CO2 emissions! They all follow Michael Mann’s hokey stick belief that the hockey stick handle was flat, until the start of the industrial revolution — when global temperature suddenly began to rise exponentially.

    The truth is that scientific skeptics have always known that the climate changes, constantly. It is pure psychological projection to claim that skeptics don’t think the climate always changes. That is the exclusive belief of the climate alarmist crowd, which is, as usual, playing word games with the facts.

    …Lookin’ at YOU, geo.

  192. Glad to find out that Freeman Dyson is still around. I had the pleasure of hearing him speak at UBC in the 1980’s and he was clearly an independent thinker then. Given his stature in the physics community, it’s curious that the MSM hasn’t given more publicity to his ideas.
    More CO2 helps plants grow and that is one of the most under-reported pieces of information in the world today. Presumably, to “environmentalists”, that is a bad thing since it means that the world’s population can keep increasing instead of mass starvation taking place as they have been predicting for decades.

    For someone like Dyson who worked on the Orion project, the increasing insularity of what passes as science on earth must be maddening. The cancellation of the Orion project was one of the first cases of politics interfering with science and the process has gotten steadily worse over the decades.

  193. David says:

    Geo is making repeated broad assertions about others, and climate. He consistently does not list the name and time of the comment he is responding to, and does not quote them. His “science” assertions are broad based, and not spported by links.He may not be a bot, but he is somewhat mindless.

  194. Chad Wozniak says:

    I had forgotten about Dr. Freeman Dyson. At least that other most worthy skeptic, Dr. William Happer, one of the 16 signatories of the Wall Street Journal op-ed, is in good company. Maybe Prinbceton hasn’t caught the AGW disease like so many other places – institutions in Pennsylvania, Virginia and Kansas come ti mind – or not as badly, at least.

    Also the Australian calling for skeptics to be put to death is Richard Parncutt, a music professor at the University of Linz in Austria (he is Australian by birth). Information oin him, and the text of his statement calling for the death penalty for skeptics, in available through Google.

    Speakinjg of death to skeptics, now that the AGW crowd have taken to calling skeptics “terrorists,” and in the wake of the alarmist toady/Judge-Jury-and-Executioner’s summary execution of an American citizen accused of terrorism, never mind that individual’s Sixth Amendment rights – now that he’s lost his virginity with respect to summary executions – should we skeptics (aka “terrorists ” in the alarmies’ Nazibabble) be on the lookout for drones coming after us? (I earnestly hope that is farfetched, but can’t quite convince myself that it is.)

    You notice I said “toady” instead of the slurs used by his leftist friends against people like Dr. Ben Carson, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, Herman Cain, John McWhorter, Charles Payne).

  195. Goode 'nuff says:

    Just an awesome post and commentary. For a while I missed the old slower pace WUWT where a subject discussion often went a week or two…
    But the faster pace of today has so much top shelf quality and freshness to it. Wish Wal~Mart sold time off our daily work for reading WUWT!

  196. geohydro2011 says:

    For starters, refute Pielke’s work on human caused changes in land use land cover and it’s subsequent effect on convection to show me that humans can not cause changes in weather. Then refute Tyndall, Fourier, and Arrhenius and their work on the efficacy of CO2 induced warming of the Earth to show me that CO2 can not warm the Earth. Show me the preponderance of peer reviewed evidence that shows that Pielke and or these others are wrong.

  197. David says:

    Geo, you are babbling non sense.

  198. jc says:

    @ Jim Clarke says:
    April 5, 2013 at 10:46 pm

    Well perhaps the emphasis needs to be changed in the way it is presented to the media.
    It has the virtue of being true which would be novel for this topic.
    It also has the potential to concentrate readers minds to a greater degree than the abstraction of “global warming” and environmentalism in general.

    Some of this is already being seen with recent reports in the UK about the additional number of people who have died this winter, and over recent winters.

    Instead of putting this in an antiseptic fashion, this can be expressed more forcefully, and more accurately, than by just quoting statistics, through bluntly saying “5000 PEOPLE KILLED BY ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES”, and profiles provided of the actual people killed in this way.

    Likewise for the deaths of birds etc caused by wind-power. And pollution through manufacturing solar panels causing health damage. And the people who starve because of bio-fuels.

    And the realities behind and resulting from the transfers of wealth. And the fact that people like Gore will own the earth through looting civilization whilst the average person will be condemned to a reduced peasant like status.

    It is all there and is more alarming than any change in climate because once fully applied it cannot be mitigated. For the average person – or any – it means something very real NOW.

    So maybe what this really does take is to stop pretending that this is a scientific debate between civilized parties, and that the above should wait on its resolution.

  199. Christoph Dollis:

    At April 6, 2013 at 6:25 pm you quote the last in a series of posts from me then write

    I really object to the sly attempt to either get the moderators to censor a dissenter or to smear the dissenter and undermine his credibility through false means.

    You cannot surely have read his or her comments and concluded it is a “bot”. You disagree, fine.

    I really object to your sly and dishonest attempts to falsely claim
    (a) I advocated censorship, I did not
    (b) I smeared the objectionable and anonymous troll, I did not
    and
    (c) that I in any way attempted to undermine the troll’s credibility, I could not

    At April 6, 2013 at 10:38 am I wrote to geohydro2011. That post began saying

    I write to help you to correct your problem which has resulted in your obtaining what you call “ad hom. attacks”.

    Read it. That post was sincere, analytical and helpful.
    The troll ignored it and continued to snow the thread with off-topic nonsense.

    At April 6, 2013 at 11:50 am I again wrote to geohydro2011. That post began by saying

    I am writing to ask you to reconsider your posts which are wasting space on the thread. I am reaching the conclusion that this waste of space is their intended purpose.

    Read it. That post was sincere and analytical.
    The troll ignored that, too, and continued to snow the thread with off-topic nonsense.

    At April 6, 2013 at 1:47 pm I wrote to the Moderators and provided the post which you have totally misrepresented. It said in full.

    Moderators:
    I do not know if this is possible but ask that you try to discern if geohydro2011 is a bot.
    I, and I am sure others, would like to read opinion concerning Freeman Dyson, his work, life and views. Instead, the many and irrational posts from geohydro2011 are disrupting the thread.
    And those posts show every indication of being a computer program and not a person.

    Clearly, you are stating a falsehood when you assert I “cannot surely have read his or her comments and concluded it is a “bot” “.
    I “concluded” nothing but asked that this be investigated because it seemed – and is – likely.
    Indeed, you agree that probability when you use “it” and not “he” or “she” (Fruedian?).

    As for my disagreeing with the troll: I do disagree with trolls. Their purpose is to be disruptive and I like to read posts that are constructive whether or not I agree with them. And I learn most from constructive information that disagrees with my views.

    I wonder why you have chosen to grossly misrepresent my post. You have certainly NOT been constructive.

    Richard

  200. geohydro2011 says:

    As I suspected, the theoretical underpinnings of the effects of CO2 on warming have not been refuted. And Pielke and et al (senior not junior) have shown that humans are very capable of affecting the weather. I rest my argument.

  201. dbstealey says:

    geohydro,

    There are no ‘theoretical underpinnings’ of the putative effects of CO2. The claims of human induced warming are only a conjecture, not an established fact. Thus, your argument fails.

  202. jc says:

    @ dbstealey says:
    April 7, 2013 at 7:16 am

    I never participate in discussions of – to borrow your word and extend its application – the putative “science” of “Climate Science”. There are sufficient people at WUWT who are ready and able to dissect what is claimed to be justification for all this, so any participation by me would be redundant. In any case, I can’t get very interested in details of something that plainly has no legitimacy as something requiring a public policy response, and where there is no evidence of any real advance in any science.

    I do notice the more general playing out of these things though, and how certain individuals stride manfully to battle only to slowly disintegrate. The points made by those such as geohydro seem now to fall inoxerablely into an eerily repeatative pattern, varied only by the personal style of delivery.

    I had to laugh when I saw the Definitive Statement of geohydro above: “I rest my argument”.
    After a brief survey indicating bluster and bravado as being his strengths, this seems just right.
    I think you (and others) have worn him out. He has called on his inner Perry Mason.

    But where is his sympathetic jury, certain to see the truth of the pose he strikes?

  203. geohydro2011 says:

    just because you say fail does not make it so–i suspect the word ‘fail’ is one that you are all too familiar with. look, i’ll make it easy for you, don’t cite the relevant literature that supports your argument–use your own words to argue and refute the work of Tyndall, Fourier, and Arrhenius on the efficacy of co2 on warming the atmosphere–you can not do it–at least not without disregarding the standard model. no, rather, you will ask me to affirm some level of evidence that shows causation. and i said before everything is a model and i would show that the axioms of Euclid are not proven (that’s why they are called axioms), that Goedel showed the folly of using mathematics to prove mathematics- indeed you can not show time exists as a physical entity nor can you prove that three dimensions exist. you can not show that i am real–it may very well be the case that you are hallucinating via your ‘user illusion.’ i digress to show that we can ‘one up’ ourselves to impossible levels of evidence. i say that the theory of co2 warming is correct, the empirical evidence showing warming is correct.

  204. geohydro2011 says:

    as i said before i am a skeptic–recent work shows that gravity may simply be an emergent property related to quanta–so i am open to new ideas and discarding old beliefs that are not supported by the science–i suspect many readers here are blinded by dogma and other non science based agenda–have at it.

  205. Lars P. says:

    geohydro2011 says:
    April 7, 2013 at 6:56 am
    As I suspected, the theoretical underpinnings of the effects of CO2 on warming have not been refuted. And Pielke and et al (senior not junior) have shown that humans are very capable of affecting the weather. I rest my argument.
    You have brought no arguments to the discussion, you have answered no posts just babbled nonsense to the line that people come to think you are an “it”, a bot, due to the lack of logic in your answers.

    It is great to see that sharp minds, as Dyson, are not deluded and trust themselves to name things by their name, even with the danger to be treated as heretics by the like you, who pretend to be sceptics.

    You do not have to lie, you can tell you are a warmist and post here, from what I’ve seen moderation is light and alarmists posts come through.

    You will find however that people argument with logic here. It is not a place where you win a discourse through noise. Screaming, spamming the thread is a typical alarmist tactic, you behave so typical troll, O/T but on message:
    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/3/19/josh-13.html

    The warming stalled, spring is delayed in Europe, global ice is over the average but you still scream your “we are doomed” (to transpire to death) message.

  206. David Ball says:

    geohydro2011 says:
    April 7, 2013 at 6:56 am

    Do you think you are the only challenger? Everything you have mentioned has been discussed over and over on this site and not a single poster that supports your view has posted any conclusive evidence. Regulars that post on WUWT are extremely informed regarding climate, paleo-climate, weather records, data collection, data auditing, and all the spinning and twisting of truth from the alarmist contingent.
    You are certainly not the first to try to refute the science posted here, and you will not be the last. Go through the archives and get up to speed or you risk staying in our dust.

  207. David Ball says:

    I have mentioned many times that Dr.Dyson is a hero of mine. He has a great mind that is open an unencumbered by the limits of our current knowledge.

  208. Alan D McIntire says:

    Dyson in a prior interview stated that when he first came to Princeton he avoided Einstein because he, Freeman Dyson, was overawed by the great man and found himself tonguetied when meeting him. After reading Einstein’s “Unified Field Theory” papers Dyson avoided Einstein because he didn’t want to have to tell him that his Unified Field Theory papers were crap- Einstein himself was no longer an Einstein when Freeman Dyson met him.

  209. David Ball says:

    geohydro2011 says:
    April 7, 2013 at 8:23 am
    ” i say that the theory of co2 warming is correct, the empirical evidence showing warming is correct.”

    Well that’s it then, Anthony. Might as well shut down WUWT? cause geo has posted conclusive proof.

    Now I may not qualify, but WUWT? needs to require an I.Q. baseline to post.

  210. fred says:

    Interesting. Actually found out some new things I didn’t know. I wonder how much parking lots impact the equation.

  211. geohydro2011 says:

    sticks and stones
    way too easy
    so have at the syllogism
    theory showing that co2 intercepts and re-radiates outgoing longwave radiation is valid
    co2 is increasing whereas other climate forcing is static or decreasing
    therefore there is an energy imbalance for the Earth’s energy budget due to increased levels of co2

  212. geohydro2011 says:

    Dyson actually said all of these disparaging things about Einstein? if so, I wonder what Dyson thinks about the Einstein’s theory of General Relativity?
    sincerely, the geo bot

  213. geohydro2011 says:

    Seriously, I just have to say that some of you have deduced I am a bot–bravo, and kudos to you, I applaud your attempts at logic. Sadly, you conclusion is wrong. If this is an example of how you reason, it is no wonder that you are mad that you are married to the position that human co2 does not warm climate.

  214. geohydro2011 says:

    parking lots today
    forest clearing in times of yore
    affecting albedo
    affecting co2
    effect demonstrable
    civilization nurtured, expanded during Holocene
    Anthropocene civilization?

  215. geohydro2011 says:

    I must leave now, I won’t be back today for I am violating my Sabbath, otherwise.
    From the looks at some of your profiles, you talk the talk but don’t walk the walk.
    Peace.

    REPLY: Since you bring up personal profiles, what about yours in Corvalis, OR? Show us that you “walk it”. – Anthony

  216. blueice2hotsea says:

    Dyson reviews Gleick’s book The Information: A History, a Theory, a Flood . Dyson nicely explores the topic while scrupulously avoiding commentary on the worth of Gleick’s conclusions. OTOH, on at least one occasion, Gleick has offered his negative opinion on Dyson’s legacy. Putz.

  217. geohydro2011 says:

    out of respect for you
    since you allowed me to ramble
    I saw the pixel tags
    and wondered if true
    my syllogism stands
    a proxy for me

    REPLY: So much for the Sabbath eh’ ?

  218. dbstealey says:

    geohydro2011 says:

    “…i am open to new ideas and discarding old beliefs that are not supported by the science…”

    “The science” of AGW is no more than a conjecture; merely the first step of the Scientific Method. There are no verifiable measurements of AGW, therefore it cannot be a testable hypothesis. Thus, your ‘new idea’ is simply your belief. And you say:

    “…it is no wonder that you are mad that you are married to the position that human co2 does not warm climate.”

    Since there are no measurements supporting your belief in AGW, it is you who are married to your conjecture. But of course you do not see that, because your mind is made up and closed tight…

    …just like you don’t see that you were owned by Anthony’s Sabbath comment.

  219. DirkH says:

    Boris Gimbarzevsky says:
    April 6, 2013 at 8:12 pm
    “For someone like Dyson who worked on the Orion project, the increasing insularity of what passes as science on earth must be maddening. The cancellation of the Orion project was one of the first cases of politics interfering with science and the process has gotten steadily worse over the decades.”

    Boris; Dyson himself states that it was him who computed how many extra deaths through cancer would result globally from one Orion launch due to radioactive material dispersed in the atmosphere, something that was only possible to compute due to new knowledge after the first nuclear atmospheric tests. So he had to tell the project that he’d quit. When they started the project they did not know or anticipate that the nukes used would have that effect.

    Unfortunately I have no link but there’s a documentary about Orion that you might find on Utube where he states that.

  220. DirkH says:

    geohydro2011 says:
    April 7, 2013 at 11:01 am
    “co2 is increasing whereas other climate forcing is static or decreasing
    therefore there is an energy imbalance for the Earth’s energy budget due to increased levels of co2″

    Now okay, I don’t wanna feed them, but obviously he has never looked at global cloudiness which is very much variable.
    http://www.climate4you.com/images/CloudCoverAllLevel%20AndWaterColumnSince1983.gif

  221. geohydro2011 says:

    [snip - too far off topic - mod]

  222. markx says:

    geohydro2011 says: April 6, 2013 at 10:18 pm

    For starters, refute Pielke’s work on human caused changes in land use land cover and it’s subsequent effect on convection to show me that humans can not cause changes in weather. Then refute Tyndall, Fourier, and Arrhenius and their work on the efficacy of CO2 induced warming of the Earth to show me that CO2 can not warm the Earth. Show me the preponderance of peer reviewed evidence that shows that Pielke and or these others are wrong.

    No question that you are correct, geo.

    Bu the devil is in the detail. What really matters is how significant such change is. And which factors are involved will surely affect which solution may be required, if any. And whether approaches other than taxes, cap and trade, and more expensive energy are really solutions, or just more problems.

  223. geohydro2011 says:

    and there it is

    [Reply: There what is? The Sabbath? — mod.]

  224. Jenn Oates says:

    When my daughter was a teen she thought I was the most amazingly brilliant mother in the known universe–except when I disagreed with her. Then, I’m sure she’d say that whatever unfortunate decision I had just made would go down in history as a tragic black mark on the record of an otherwise A-list parent. The fact that her angst moved me not a bit would infuriate her even more.

    I expect Freeman Dyson is even less concerned about his former admirers’ disappointment than I was at my daughter’s teenage indignation.

    And wait…we have profiles? I wonder what’s in mine. Do I have insultable information in it? If not, I must go add some.

    :)

  225. Robert in Calgary says:

    For years I have agreed with much of what Pielke Sr. says.

    http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/main-conclusions-2/

    I can also say that CAGW is a scam. The Vostok ice core supports me. I don’t have to prove anything else.

    It’s up to folks like geo to prove their point.

    They haven’t. They don’t They just wave their hands in the air.

  226. geohydro2011 says:

    [
    snip -
    stop writing
    in verses
    and you may have
    a point
    -mod ]

  227. geohydro2011 says:

    But to the matter at hand, Dyson believes in anthropogenic warming due to greenhouse gases.
    What is problematic is the solution to excess co2.
    I support a solution offered by Hansen: “We are all better off if fossil fuels are made to
    pay their honest costs to society. We must collect a gradually rising fee from fossil fuel companies at the source, the domestic mine or port of entry, distributing the funds to the public on a per capita basis. This approach will provide the business community and entrepreneurs the incentives to develop clean energy and energy-efficient products, and the public will have the resources to make changes.”
    I think Dyson would find merit in this type of solution.
    Do you? Do you find merit?

  228. geohydro2011 says:

    Some posters have commented regarding my observation of the Sabbath.
    Perhaps the following link will illuminate: http://godgumnuts.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-importance-of-sabbath.html

  229. dbstealey says:

    geohydro2011,

    Ah, but you already admitted: “I am violating my Sabbath”. You raised the issue, so it’s amusing seeing you try to tapdance your way out of it. Climbdowns are always fun to watch.

  230. geohydro2011 says:

    sorry you have missed the point
    it is not so much about observation of the Sabbath for the sake of observation of the Sabbath
    the Sabbath is about rest and rejoice in the Earth

  231. dbstealey says:

    tap, tap, tap… ☺

  232. dbstealey says:

    geohydro2011 says:

    “What is problematic is the solution to excess co2.”

    Wrong. There is nothing “problematic” with CO2, and it does mnot need a “solution”. More CO2 is better; there is no downside at either current or projected concentrations. Even if CO2 doubled, which it won’t, it would still be a very tiny trace gas, which has no measurable effect even at current concentrations. And global warming — which is entirely natural — is a net benefit to the biosphere.

    There is no downside to another degree or two of warming: Arctic ice could disappear, slashing fuel costs and transit times. Precipitation would increase, which would water millions of acres of new farmland in places like Siberia, Alaska, Canada and Mongolia. And winter fuel costs would be sharply reduced, as would deaths from cold weather. The world’s poor would benefit the most.

    Those are all verifiable outcomes to global warming, which is entirely beneficial. In order to counter those benefits, climate alarmists are forced to invent scary scenarios, which have nothing to do with reality; they only serve to rile up emotions.

    Finally, Prof Dyson sees no harm from the rise in beneficial CO2. It is telling that you do — and that you presume to re-interpret Dyson’s views in order to support your evidence-free climate alarmism.

  233. geohydro2011 says:

    what if Vostok is wrong, then what?
    you believe that Vostok is true, yet when the same system of science shows something contrary to your belief, you resort to ad hom attacks
    I can not even salute you on your blind committment to your belief–I think it is contrary to the scientific method–perhaps I have missed something–you do beleive in the scientific method?
    it does not require blind faith–nay, an open mind,
    a mind willing to contemplate the works of Tyndall, Fourier, and Arrhenius
    The syllogism I put forth still awaits refutation–do you care to show my folly?

  234. geohydro2011 says:

    commercially grown crops such as maize, grown in the American Midwest under conditions of about 780 ppm CO2 and the presence of ground-level ozone return a smaller yield than crops grown in the last decade. ground-level ozone is found in and near cities and petroleum wells.
    http://www.princeton.edu/~mauzeral/papers/Avnery%20Mauzerall%20etal%20ag%202030%20AE%202011.pdf

  235. Mark Bofill says:

    Robert in Calgary says:
    April 7, 2013 at 4:04 pm

    …I can also say that CAGW is a scam. The Vostok ice core supports me. I don’t have to prove anything else.

    ————
    Geo, if this is who you are responding to, and I only think this because nobody else on the thread has mentioned Vostok ice core, it helps if you address your comment to that person. This may have contributed to the idea some held that you might be a bot; reading your responses to other comments without reference makes them bizzare and virtually indecipherable.

    The simple method I use is this, copy the comment (or at least the header JohnDoe says: and separate from your reply via a few dashed lines.

  236. dbstealey says:

    geohydro2011,

    Why do you continue to conflate ozone with CO2?

    There is ample scientific and economic evidence that increased CO2 results in greater agricultural output.

    CO2 is essential to life on earth. More is better. Trying to demonize “carbon” shows scientific ignorance more than anything.

  237. geohydro2011 says:

    db, your comments, your claims need to be supported by evidence,
    let’s start with “Even if CO2 doubled, which it won’t, it would still be a very tiny trace gas, which has no measurable effect even at current concentrations.” What scholarly research supports your claim? Better put a pot of coffee on, it’s going to be a long day.

  238. Mark Bofill says:

    This is like a train wreck or something, I can’t stop watching this.

    ~puts some popcorn in the microwave and settles in to watch~

  239. jc says:

    I have to say that geohydro is much more interesting than most such. Not in what he says but in the sheer scope and variety of expression of his flounderings.

    He will pull any random factoid from any context and one minute declaim, the next muse. Quite fascinating! The impression is of an entity flailing helplessly in a vacuum. He keeps at it in way that suggests desperation.

    Possibly he just wants to make friends, thus this sense of compulsion to be recognized – for anything. If that’s the case, he has a problem, since no-one here will indulge the personal at the expense of intelligence. I wonder where it will go from here?

  240. dbstealey says:

    geohydro,

    I can support everything I post. Regarding the fact that CO2 is harmless and beneficial to the biosphere, I refer you to the OISM Petition:

    The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

    There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

    That statement was written by a past president of the National Academy of Sciences, and it has been co-signed by more than 31,000 professional scientists, every one of them with a degree in the hard sciences — including more than 9,000 PhD’s. You can argue with them, but you would lose the argument. They state quite plainly that CO2 is both harmless and beneficial. There is no measureable scientific evidence showing global harm due to the rise in beneficial CO2.

    And as usual, the climate alarmist tries to put the scientific skeptic into the position of proving that the AGW conjecture is not factual. But the onus is on those who make the claim, not on skeptics. Try to keep that in mind.

  241. Robert in Calgary says:

    1. Geo asks, what if Vostok is wrong? To quote Geo – “your comments, your claims need to be supported by evidence” Prove Vostok is wrong.

    2. Excess CO2? Have you ever considered that CO2 levels were getting too low?

    http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm

    “Ambient CO2 level in outside air is about 340 ppm by volume. All plants grow well at this level but as CO2 levels are raised by 1,000 ppm photosynthesis increases proportionately resulting in more sugars and carbohydrates available for plant growth. Any actively growing crop in a tightly clad greenhouse with little or no ventilation can readily reduce the CO2 level during the day to as low as 200 ppm. The decrease in photosynthesis when CO2 level drops from 340 ppm to 200 ppm is similar to the increase when the CO2 levels are raised from 340 to about 1,300 ppm (Figure 1). As a rule of thumb, a drop in carbon dioxide levels below ambient has a stronger effect than supplementation above ambient.”

    To be clear, they’re raising the CO2 level to 1300-1400 ppm.

    3. Yes, it would be a shame if CO2 hysteria sucks up all the attention that might be paid to Ozone.

  242. geohydro2011 says:

    db, you said “Even if CO2 doubled, which it won’t, it would still be a very tiny trace gas, which has no measurable effect even at current concentrations.” You latest post re OISM does not support that claim. Did you mis-speak?

  243. geohydro2011 says:

    robert in calgary, here you go: http://www3.geosc.psu.edu/~tas11/research.html
    a greenhouse is not the Earth–nice try http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm
    ground level o3 is increasing due to petroleum extraction and combustion

  244. dbstealey says:

    geohydro2011,

    Ah, the old red herring fallacy: when I answer one complaint, you change to another one.

    How about responding specifically to my reply, in which I supported my position that CO2 is both harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere? Or is that too uncomfortable for you? Because after all, that is the central issue of the entire “carbon” debate.

    But if you only want to learn why CO2 will not double from current concentrations, do a WUWT archive search using the keyword “CO2″. You are very late to the party; that subject has been re-hashed endlessly here over the past few years.

    But first, show us, using testable science and verifiable observations, that CO2 is globally harmful, and show us how it is not beneficial to the biosphere. Those are your claims; defend them, if you think you can.

  245. geohydro2011 says:

    robert and db:

    For starters, refute Pielke’s work on human caused changes in land use land cover and it’s subsequent effect on convection to show me that humans can not cause changes in weather. Then refute Tyndall, Fourier, and Arrhenius and their work on the efficacy of CO2 induced warming of the Earth to show me that CO2 can not warm the Earth. Show me the preponderance of peer reviewed evidence that shows that Pielke and or these others are wrong.

    unless you do we are through here

  246. geohydro2011 says:

    robert you said “Even if CO2 doubled, which it won’t, it would still be a very tiny trace gas, which has no measurable effect even at current concentrations.” You OISM post does not support you claim. Where is the evidence to support you very simple question? We are done here bucko until you do

  247. geohydro2011 says:

    I’m done with this site
    Your moderation results in censorship
    Eppur si muove

    REPLY: you said you’d leave earlier, yet here you are. Commenting is a privilege, not a right, use it wisely and snark free and you’ll have no problems. Write snarky gobbledygook haikus, and you won’t get any respect -Anthony

  248. jc says:

    @ geohydro2011 says:
    April 7, 2013 at 8:51 pm

    Have you really gone? No more? If you come back and complete the course Anthony may condescend to upgrade you from geohydro2011 to 2013. To be honest, I’m surprised you have accreditation for 2011. I would have thought c2007 as the last time your thought processes changed.

  249. Lars P. says:

    blueice2hotsea says:
    April 7, 2013 at 11:30 am
    Dyson reviews Gleick’s book The Information: A History, a Theory, a Flood .
    Thank you blueice2hotsea for the link! It was a really interesting and pleasant lecture!

Comments are closed.