Freeman Dyson, Global Warming Heretic

[adios]

The predictive value of the climate models is unproven, call me a creationist if you must. Dyson takes it a step further and states that the models are lacking. He's not the only person that claims they're lacking. They're all oil company tools anyway so why bother with other names. Dyson's obviously an oil company tool as well.

[Jcrew]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually it's rather poorly put. The stove analogy in particular is stupid. A more accurate analogy is removing the pot completely from the stove, and then expecting it to keep heating up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your analogy modification is completely retarded. Less output from the sun = no energy input at all to the pot system?

[ QUOTE ]
It's not like the sun's intensity gradually wanes over time - the incoming radiation travels very fast and when it's less, there's no "residue" around left to transfer heat. It just doesn't work like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ignoring any possibilities of the oceans acting as heat reservoirs, can you not see that even if solar output drops from recent highs that it can still increase global temperatures? Everything to do with radiative heat equilibriums and nothing to do with "residues".

[ QUOTE ]

ZERO studies published in any journals that throw doubt on this interpretation.


[/ QUOTE ]

Scafetta, N., and B. J. West, 2006. Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900-2000 global surface warming. Geophysical Research Letters, doi: 1029/2005GL025539.

Although in the study the solar input doesn't contribute to the majority of the warming, it concludes it may affect up 45–50% of the 1900–2000 global warming, and 25–35% of the 1980–2000 global warming which is rather significant. I've seen other studies, mostly in Russian physics journals, by solar scientists claiming solar significance to global warming. Yet there are other studies with everything from land development to cosmic rays that other scientists claim are major contributers that don't make it into the IPCC report. Most of this confidence that CO2 attribution have been from climate models. Did you see this study in the IPCC report?

http://www.physorg.com/news3694.html

I am going to take a wild guess and say no.

You are being completely naive or purposely obtuse about how science works. Notice the wars between String Theorists and Quantum Loop advocates. Scientists are not above ego and the vast majority have vested interest in their own personal theories. Too bad the UN IPCC with their literature filtering distorts so it causes a relatively sharp guy like you from seeing the whole picture.

By the way, I do think CO2 is the most plausible candidate for the cause of warming, but the confidence level of the attribution is ridiculously high. They get their probability distribution and error bars from convoluting the various climate models. Very nice science there. The best part about the whole thing is that can a probability distribution of a one-time event be falsified? Very convenient it can't.

[Exsubmariner]

I think that Phil's handle should be changed to Wacki disciple.

I frequently find that when I raise a real challenge to either of these guys based on my actual studies (which wacki challenged me to do, BTW) neither one of them responds with anything substantive. I frequently get ignored. Wacki seems to think he is the expert and is beyond questioning, and phil simply immitates. Both of them seem to be hung up on the fallacy of appeal to their own authority, which doesn't exist.

[Copernicus]

Whats more disturbing is Wacki's out and out lies of late. For a long time he seemed like a well meaning advocate of his perception of the science, even if his confidence in the models was misplaced. He's been caught in too many inaccuracies to give him the benefit of the doubt any longer. I still give Phil the benefit of the doubt. He's well reasoned on other topics, and while it may seem he is parrotting Wacki, they are relying on the same science, so it would be a surprise if he didn't sound the same. At least he hasn't been caught in such outrageous misstatements.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
No you are correct. NYT's Andy Revkin talked about how deniers typically get worse and worse as the odds turns against them. The closer they are to defeat the larger the lies will become.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually this may be true....but the side that is getting closer to defeat are the MCGW cultists...

e.g. I have stated the example of Michael Mann falsifying data to construct his infamous "hockey stick" graph. He conviently omitted the Medieval Warming Period and when his data was found to be manipulated he said the cause was because of "mathematical algorythms". Algorythms he has STILL refused to release. You can NOT call your work science unless you release detailed methodology sections which allows others to replicate your results.... Any freshman knows if you omit the methodology section in a lab report that you will lose a letter grade. To do so at the professional level would be career suicide.....unless your PhD is in climatology and you advocate that MCGW. Then not only do you get a pass, but other MCGW cultists will jump to your defense...

OK, your turn...

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
All I'm doing is asking you to either clarify your statements or show evidence supporting your statements. It's not that hard.

[/ QUOTE ]
I asserted those nitwits at NASAS could not calcualte the temperature properly. I included a link. A link that evidently you were too lazy to click on. THE LINK IS STILL THERE. FEEL FREE TO CLICK ON IT !!!! I'm not going to move the mouse for you..... Here is the link....AGAIN!!!
http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/200...ttest_yea.html

To Recap:
1. I made an assertion (NASA incompetence on temp readings),
2. I provided evidence of my assertion, and
3. You falsely claim I did not back up my assertion.

I just don't think you are capable of discussing this subject on a rational level. You get too emotional and it gets to be a waste of time. You claim that I did not back up my assertion is just 1000% FALSE. What you resent is I didn't play your 'Socratic Method' game and insisted that you make your point directly. Here is another link for you.... perhaps you may actually click on this. Yes?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method
The Socratic Method is for in person discussions. To use on a internet forum is a HUGE waste of time. But if you had the brains of Socrates then I might make an exception and try to be more patient....but you don't. So either make your counter-argument directly or don't waste my time....

[Felix_Nietzsche]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,501145,00.html
The money quote:
"The poor old Scandinavian moose is now being blamed for climate change, with researchers in Norway claiming that a grown moose can produce 2,100 kilos of methane a year -- equivalent to the CO2 output resulting from a 13,000 kilometer car journey."

Thank god these nitwits are not on my side of the MCGW argument.
So much for the proposal to give up our cars and ride a moose to work.... [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

*You will have to paste the link to your browser to read it fully.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that Phil's handle should be changed to Wacki disciple.

I frequently find that when I raise a real challenge to either of these guys based on my actual studies (which wacki challenged me to do, BTW) neither one of them responds with anything substantive. I frequently get ignored. Wacki seems to think he is the expert and is beyond questioning, and phil simply immitates. Both of them seem to be hung up on the fallacy of appeal to their own authority, which doesn't exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that Phil's handle should be changed to Wacki disciple.

I frequently find that when I raise a real challenge to either of these guys based on my actual studies (which wacki challenged me to do, BTW) neither one of them responds with anything substantive. I frequently get ignored. Wacki seems to think he is the expert and is beyond questioning, and phil simply immitates. Both of them seem to be hung up on the fallacy of appeal to their own authority, which doesn't exist.

[/ QUOTE ]
I do intend to answer everything. I don't know everything either and I'm open to changing my mind. But there's a lot of responses here and it takes to find the sources for things I've read in the past.

As for honesty and motives, which you're attacking...you have NOT answered my previous questions, instead bombarding me new ones and ignoring the huge holes I shot in your f'ed up theories. I'm going to write out comments and responses so everyone can see how honest you've been. They are from this thread.

First example
<font color="red">Submariner:</font>So, a warmer planet equals a wetter atmosphere which equals more clouds cancelling the effect.

<font color="blue">Phil153</font>Dumb question:

2. How did we ever get out of ice ages if the cloud feedback cancels out any heating?

<font color="red">Submariner</font>

2. The ice ages are a function of the precession of the equinox. The North Pole of the planet wobbles slightly over the course of many thousands of years. This has the effect delivering variable amounts of solar radiation to the poles.

<font color="blue">Phil153 (now)</font> You didn't really answer the question. You claim warming causes an increase in cloud, which reflects the sun and negates any warming, YET somehow the planet has happily increased in temperature in the past, in response to forcing. Does not compute...

Second example

<font color="red">Submariner</font>RAIN TAKES CO2 OUT OF THE AIR. A WARMER WETTER PLANET HAS MORE PRECIPITATION AND REMOVES THE CO2.

<font color="blue">Phil153</font>Please explain this graph:

Monthly CO2 trends at the Hawaii weather station
http://www.ec.gc.ca/soer-ree/English/Ind...Print=true&amp;


[/ QUOTE ]
<font color="red">Submariner</font>
Over the long term, CO2 lags 800 years behind climatic warm periods. There was a time known as the medieval warm period that took place about 800 years ago.

There is also a theory called the "Snowball Earth Theory" which addresses the role of volcanism in CO2 content. A CO2 content of many hundreds of times what the concentration was today was required to break out of the cycle keeping the Earth covered in ice. The reason why CO2 is still not that high is due to precipitation takeing it out of the air.

<font color="blue">Phil153 (now)</font> Two things here. Firstly, there is little to no evidence that the medieval warm period was a global phenomena. Secondly, can you find anyone who agrees with you about the lag being the reason of recent increases? In 1990, we were pumping 20 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere a year, of a total 2 trillion tonnes. The amount of CO2 we've put into the atmosphere corresponds well with the increase we've seen. In fact, it's quite a bit larger, as the oceans have been absorbing a signficant quantity and becoming more acidic. Is there any scientist who thinks that that man isn't the cause of the increase? You're pretty much showing a great deal of ignorance here.


Secondly, the issue is not whether CO2 eventually weathers (it does, but not by getting washed out by rain in a few years - LOL). The issue is how long it takes. CO2 is largely stable in the climate system and takes thousands of years (or longer) to weather out by forming chemical reactions with rocks and getting stored in plants underground (but mostly rocks).

So the graph stands, and you can't explain it. You simply could not be more wrong on this point.

As for Lindzen, you have to realize that his public and scientific utterances are very different. He's an opportunist who will lie or mislead given the opportunity. Here's the quote regarding his distancing himself from the Iris Effect:

[ QUOTE ]
In 2001, Lindzen published a paper speculating that as the Earth warmed, water vapor would decrease in the upper atmosphere, allowing heat to escape back into space more efficiently, and thereby reducing overall temperature.

The paper met with vigorous criticism. Eventually, he disavowed the idea. "That was an old view," Lindzen said about his five-year-old hypothesis. "I find it insane that I am still forced to explain this."

[/ QUOTE ]
http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/200...n.php?page=all

I have more responses to others but it takes time to find the references for things I've read. I will respond.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually it's rather poorly put. The stove analogy in particular is stupid. A more accurate analogy is removing the pot completely from the stove, and then expecting it to keep heating up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your analogy modification is completely retarded. Less output from the sun = no energy input at all to the pot system?


[/ QUOTE ]
In the pot analogy, the pot does not begin cooling immediately because the hotplate is still far hotter than the dial would suggest. It takes time for the hotplate to radiate down to the lower observed temperature. THIS IS NOT THE CASE WITH THE SUN. If we're measuring x amount of solar radiation, that's the actual input the sun is giving. If the dial on the hotplate is turned to a lower setting, it takes time for the hotplate to output an amount of heat consistent with that dial. Yes? Do you see why the analogy fails?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's not like the sun's intensity gradually wanes over time - the incoming radiation travels very fast and when it's less, there's no "residue" around left to transfer heat. It just doesn't work like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ignoring any possibilities of the oceans acting as heat reservoirs, can you not see that even if solar output drops from recent highs that it can still increase global temperatures? Everything to do with radiative heat equilibriums and nothing to do with "residues".

[/ QUOTE ]
I appreciate the fact that the Earth can act as a reservoir of heat. However, I fail to see how it can do so for 20 years when

- radiation increases with the fourth power of temperature.
- there is no known mechanism by which it perpetuates other warming, ESPECIALLY if the strong negative feedback mechanisms are in place that the deniers claim. Think about it.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

ZERO studies published in any journals that throw doubt on this interpretation.


[/ QUOTE ]

Scafetta, N., and B. J. West, 2006. Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900-2000 global surface warming. Geophysical Research Letters, doi: 1029/2005GL025539.

Although in the study the solar input doesn't contribute to the majority of the warming, it concludes it may affect up 45–50% of the 1900–2000 global warming, and 25–35% of the 1980–2000 global warming which is rather significant. I've seen other studies, mostly in Russian physics journals, by solar scientists claiming solar significance to global warming. Yet there are other studies with everything from land development to cosmic rays that other scientists claim are major contributers that don't make it into the IPCC report. Most of this confidence that CO2 attribution have been from climate models. Did you see this study in the IPCC report?

http://www.physorg.com/news3694.html

I am going to take a wild guess and say no.


[/ QUOTE ]
The study shows that the sun has not been the majority cause of recent warming. I am well aware of it (plus, the 1900 number is irrelevant, since much of the warming in the 30s/40s is already though to be directly due to the sun). In addition, other studies show lesser effect. My point is very simple: If the sun is causing the warming, why are there no scientific studies showing it? No one has come up with any theory why the sun should cause an effect anywhere near this large, and there are plenty of reasons why it isn't.

[ QUOTE ]
You are being completely naive or purposely obtuse about how science works.

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps. I'm not sure you appreciate just how many scientists and scientific bodies agree with it though.

[ QUOTE ]
By the way, I do think CO2 is the most plausible candidate for the cause of warming, but the confidence level of the attribution is ridiculously high. They get their probability distribution and error bars from convoluting the various climate models. Very nice science there. The best part about the whole thing is that can a probability distribution of a one-time event be falsified? Very convenient it can't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please indicate which of the above you think is flawed, and why.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Phil,
What's the highest concentration of CO2 in the atmoshpere in the geologic history of the planet? What was the temperature like at that time and how do we know this?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't have a good understanding of this. I know it has been significantly higher in the distant past.

[ QUOTE ]
I would really be impressed here if you could respond to my post about ice cores only providing part of the picture about concentrations of CO2 in a rational manner instead of just ignoring my point that you are basing alot on looking at partial evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]
I am not aware of significant flaws in the ice cores when it come to CO2 levels. I'll look into it.