Climatologists Are No Einsteins, Says His Successor
by Paul Mulshine, The Star Ledger via the GWPF
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.
and there it is
[Reply: There what is? The Sabbath? — mod.]
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.
🙂
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.
[
snip –
stop writing
in verses
and you may have
a point
-mod ]
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?
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
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.
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
tap, tap, tap… ☺
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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~
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?
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:
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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
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
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