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.
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!
Seriously geohydro2011,
Have you been in a bubble the last few weeks?
Marcott’s paper is in the toilet.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=marcott
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 .
“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.
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?
geohydro2011 – the authors of the study you link to now admit that their 20th century temperature statistics are not robust.
geohydro2011 says:
April 5, 2013 at 7:45 pm
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?
Infidel heretics like Freeman Dyson deserve all that they get. 😉
One of the biggest … problems with the Leftists is that instead of planting grass ….[they’re] smoking it… no CO2 uptake there.
@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/
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
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.
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
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?”
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?)
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.
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
So, I strongly advise that his nonsense be ignored. Otherwise this thread will be completely derailed and provide nothing useful.
Richard
“Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication”
Leonardo da Vinci
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.
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.
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”!
Isn’t it easy to spot a genuine scientist telling the truth.
‘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 .
From the Economist article Climate science A sensitive matter:
Some rule, some thumb.
“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.