Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Trakar]

...It's not anything like the evolution "debate", which has deep roots in some divine intervention, and a willingness to ignore all scientific thought and theory, as well as credible experiments and evidence from all corners...

For most of the deniers I run into, this is a perfect description. Their ideology may be extremist economics or politics, but there is generally an ideological root at the base of their denial of the science.

There are certainly the AGW "agnostics," (so to speak) who lacking a scientific grasp of the topic lean toward what they perceive as the stance of thier preferred social group/ideology, but these generally aren't the people who argue the issue. Those who argue the issue are the ideologues who seek to demonstrate that their perspective best reflects reality. This includes myself and many others who argue from the perspective of what the science says. That doesn't mean that my public policy preferences are any more sound than any others, it merely means that my understandings of the problem are in accord with and founded upon the mainstream science understandings of this issue.

 

[Trakar]

It's an unfortunate name (I suspect the hand of a journalist) but it's probably too late to popularise the Tyndall Effect. I use it myself sometimes; it can open up the opportunity to mention Tyndall's work in the 1850's, and far too many people think the effect is a new idea.

In most scientific quarters the Callendar/Tyndall Effect are the traditional referents. "Greenhouse effect" and "greenhouse gases" are popularizations that gained traction early on due to the connections to obvious end result. This commonly happens as science is translated from labs and classrooms into the realm of popular awareness and discussion. Lamentable perhaps, but it is what it is.

 

[r-j]

this experiment does not invovle different gas compositions

What experiment?

 

[r-j]

Harold Lewis and Freeman Dyson are examples of scientific minds that are both smart and outspoken, both have said clearly what they perceive as the big blunders are of the global warming movement. Both the scientific problems as well as the ridiculous emotional nonsense that prevails, rather than logic and reason.

The global warmers merely handwave them away and pretend all is well, and they must both be mad.

 

[lomiller]

this experiment does not invovle different gas compositions

Nor different pressures.

It also doesn't pass even basic sanity checks. All the energy the earth receives from the Sun has to leave the planet via IR radiation. If the atmosphere already blocks 100% of this, well it would be pretty toasty by now.

 

[uke2se]

Harold Lewis and Freeman Dyson are examples of scientific minds that are both smart and outspoken, both have said clearly what they perceive as the big blunders are of the global warming movement. Both the scientific problems as well as the ridiculous emotional nonsense that prevails, rather than logic and reason.

The global warmers merely handwave them away and pretend all is well, and they must both be mad.

No, the "global warmers" (also called 'realists') show how Freeman Dyson and Harold Lewis are either wrong or how their arguments don't affect the basic conclusions of the science of AGW. Nice argument from authority, though.

 

[DC]

What experiment?

Reading about the 1909 experiment, and the reproduction of, the scientific response seems obvious enough. Change the amounts of CO2 in the box, show with utter clarity the actual response of air with increasing amounts of CO2 in it,

the one oyu were refering to in the sentence before the quoted part.

 

[DC]

Harold Lewis and Freeman Dyson are examples of scientific minds that are both smart and outspoken, both have said clearly what they perceive as the big blunders are of the global warming movement. Both the scientific problems as well as the ridiculous emotional nonsense that prevails, rather than logic and reason.

The global warmers merely handwave them away and pretend all is well, and they must both be mad.

they must not be mad, they are just wrong as the evidence shows.

 

[Reality Check]

Harold Lewis and Freeman Dyson are examples of scientific minds that are both smart and outspoken, both have said clearly what they perceive as the big blunders are of the global warming movement.

Argument from authority does not help your case because other people can cite the 1000's of published climate scientists that state the global warming is happening and caused by us.

Harold Lewis acts like a conspiracy theorist who thinks that climate scientists have been bribed somehow to create global warming (It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists).
He has published no "big blunders" or "scientific problems" as you assert.

Freeman Dyson has published no "big blunders" or "scientific problems" as you assert.

Climate scientists ignore Harold Lewis and Freeman Dyson because they have never published anything on climate science.

 

[Trakar]

Harold Lewis and Freeman Dyson are examples of scientific minds that are both smart and outspoken, both have said clearly what they perceive as the big blunders are of the global warming movement. Both the scientific problems as well as the ridiculous emotional nonsense that prevails, rather than logic and reason.

The global warmers merely handwave them away and pretend all is well, and they must both be mad.

Neither are climatologists, Dyson hasn't really looked into the issue and Dr Lewis seems to have a different agenda (according to their own words).

...Freeman Dyson: It’s difficult to say, “Yes” or “No.” It was reasonably accurate on details, because they did send a fact-checker. So I was able to correct the worst mistakes. But what I could not correct was the general emphasis of the thing. He had his agenda. Obviously he wanted to write a piece about global warming and I was just the instrument for that, and I am not so much interested in global warming. He portrayed me as sort of Listen to the full interview (43 min.) obsessed with the subject, which I am definitely not. To me it is a very small part of my life. I don’t claim to be an expert. I never did. I simply find that a lot of these claims that experts are making are absurd. Not that I know better, but I know a few things. My objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have. I think that’s what upsets me... http://e360.yale.edu/feature/freeman_dyson_takes_on_the_climate_establishment/2151/

According to Lewis in his 1992 book "Technological Risk":

(speaking of anthropogenic climate change and CO2 emissions)
"...All models agree that the net effect will be a general and global warming of the earth; they only disagree about how much. None suggest that it will be a minor effect, to be ignored while we go about our business...the bottom line is that the Earth will be substantially warmed by the accumulation of man-made gases mainly carbon dioxide...The only option in the long run is to decrease the amount of waste gases in the atmosphere."

It's hard to say exactly why Dr. Lewis reversed his position so drastically, but it is probably important to note that a mere three days after his rather dramatic and publically petulant resignation from the APS, he accepted a paid position on the board of a hyperpartisan political think tank and lobbyist organization disingenuously called the "Global Warming Policy Foundation," where he served until he died about a year later.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Climate scientists ignore Harold Lewis and Freeman Dyson because they have never published anything on climate science.

Unless their -way- past work in the field of nuclear winter qualifies like that (Certainly it could qualify as speculative and environmental, with 'and' being used just as a conjunction)

 

[CapelDodger]

Harold Lewis and Freeman Dyson are examples of scientific minds that are both smart and outspoken ...

And long-lived.

... both have said clearly what they perceive as the big blunders are of the global warming movement.

Harold Lewis thought that climate science had been extremely clever in corrupting the entire scientific world to attract funding to itself, and concealing it from all but him and some other really long-lived guys. Conspiracy theorists just happened to get this one right by chance, perhaps? I'm not privy to his deep thinking on this issue, but he definitely knew he was being targeted by the scientific establishment for his views. I can understand why you think highly of him, at least in his later years (if not in his "AGW will have a significant impact" days, before he cracked open the conspiracy.

To me, it sounds like he went emeritus.

Dyson Freeman is less apparently demented but is a notorious attention-seeker, and a way to get attention these days is to come out against the "global warming movement" (otherwise known as the educated majority). He is also a technophile of epic proportions, and actually has no real difficulty with the idea that billions may well die in the near future. These things happen, but technology goes ever onward and upward.

I can see why you'd like him too. Do you have any younger "smart and outspoken" scientific heroes? I can't help noticing just how aged the AGW denial movement is; the median age has to be in the 60's at least.

Both the scientific problems as well as the ridiculous emotional nonsense that prevails, rather than logic and reason.

Concern about megadeaths is indeed an emotional response. The science simply points out that its coming.

The global warmers merely handwave them away and pretend all is well, and they must both be mad.

You clearly don't read the main pro-climate-science blogs where these two characters have received a lot of attention and reasoned responses (where reason is appropriate, which of course it wasn't much with Lewis in his autumn years).

 

[Trakar]

...I can see why you'd like him too. Do you have any younger "smart and outspoken" scientific heroes? I can't help noticing just how aged the AGW denial movement is; the median age has to be in the 60's at least...

hey, Hey, HEY!!

Come on now, let's keep this civil! There's no need to get all personal here! Besides, I resemble that remark. Now you'll have to excuse me while I go make sure that none of these punk neighborhood miscreants are walking across my lawn.

 

[Lowpro]

So Nature published this article concerning the ability to distinguish between the observed climate change and expected climate change from anthropic sources.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1553.html

While I suggest doing a good read-over or two of the article, the basic gist is that researches map the observed temperature variance within the upper ocean layer and mapping it against environmental models of Earth. The observed measurements correlate well with a model that includes recent additional anthropic loads. This could be seen as an additional point of evidence that it's human actions that are effecting the observed global climate change.

ScienceDaily comments:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120611153234.htm

 

[Trakar]

So Nature published this article concerning the ability to distinguish between the observed climate change and expected climate change from anthropic sources.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1553.html

While I suggest doing a good read-over or two of the article, the basic gist is that researches map the observed temperature variance within the upper ocean layer and mapping it against environmental models of Earth. The observed measurements correlate well with a model that includes recent additional anthropic loads. This could be seen as an additional point of evidence that it's human actions that are effecting the observed global climate change.

ScienceDaily comments:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120611153234.htm

This actually seemssupportive of not just the natural forcing vs AGW forced modelled conditions, it also seem to be in general accord with several paleoclimate proxy studies comparing the same issues. I'll have to pull up the other studies I'm thinking of, and run a closer look at the actual values they are resolving, but it seems like a potentially very interesting study. Thank-you for sharing!

 

[CapelDodger]

Five days without a post now, so I guess the Debate is over.

Considering the weather and wildfires in the US and the phase of the Arctic sea-ice cycle it's more likely to be a pause in denying. There's too little data to reach any sensible conclusion. If the pause in denying extends through the US Presidential election we can start to consider it as indicative.

There's always a natural level of background denying, of course, on WattsUpMyButt and the like, but nothing much recently to really get the detectors blaring. But, as the old saying goes, just when you think the final final nail has been driven into the coffin the hammering starts again.

 

[Piggy]

Five days without a post now, so I guess the Debate is over.

Considering the weather and wildfires in the US and the phase of the Arctic sea-ice cycle it's more likely to be a pause in denying. There's too little data to reach any sensible conclusion. If the pause in denying extends through the US Presidential election we can start to consider it as indicative.

There's always a natural level of background denying, of course, on WattsUpMyButt and the like, but nothing much recently to really get the detectors blaring. But, as the old saying goes, just when you think the final final nail has been driven into the coffin the hammering starts again.

I sense that many are getting the sneaking feeling that their cherry-picked "cooling trend" will come to an end if this year turns out to be the hottest on record.

I'm not seeing any anti-GW "vents" in my local paper.

But then, too, the ire of the usual suspects is currently directed against Obama, SCOTUS, and DOJ.

If anywhere on the planet gets an unusually cold winter this year, my prediction is that they'll be back on the whistle tour.

 

[aleCcowaN]

...

If anywhere on the planet gets an unusually cold winter this year, my prediction is that they'll be back on the whistle tour.

In fact, we're living here one of the warmest winters I can remember, with average temperature about 3.5°C (6°F) above the already warmer 1980-2010 "normals". Lots of plants are blooming out of season and last 21st, the shortest day of the year and after the first frosts of the season, some deciduous trees finally "understood it" and got their leaves of red and gold. We got to stand common mosquito (Culex pipiens) until two weeks ago. The other species, grown from one -the said pipiens- to about 20 are mostly gone because of the previous few cold (normal, I'd say) winters in a row, but they're are surely to come back soon, including Aedes aegipty...

Well, enough of "cherry picking" in the cherry-only orchard. It's obvious we are at the end of an extremely long lasting Niña. What is it going to happen? A new Niña is possible but not probable. I can't imagine what would happen if a strong and long lasting Niño appears above the current state of the climate.

 

[Piggy]

In fact, we're living here one of the warmest winters I can remember, with average temperature about 3.5°C (6°F) above the already warmer 1980-2010 "normals". Lots of plants are blooming out of season and last 21st, the shortest day of the year and after the first frosts of the season, some deciduous trees finally "understood it" and got their leaves of red and gold. We got to stand common mosquito (Culex pipiens) until two weeks ago. The other species, grown from one -the said pipiens- to about 20 are mostly gone because of the previous few cold (normal, I'd say) winters in a row, but they're are surely to come back soon, including Aedes aegipty...

Well, enough of "cherry picking" in the cherry-only orchard. It's obvious we are at the end of an extremely long lasting Niña. What is it going to happen? A new Niña is possible but not probable. I can't imagine what would happen if a strong and long lasting Niño appears above the current state of the climate.

Same here for our most recent winter. But of course our winter will come during your next summer.

 

[CapelDodger]

I sense that many are getting the sneaking feeling that their cherry-picked "cooling trend" will come to an end if this year turns out to be the hottest on record.

They grasp at one short-term expedient after another, and the professionals surely realise it. "It's been cooling recently" will linger for years in the duller minds, and the professionals have been milking it recently, getting it embedded for what will be difficult times ahead. Expect their temperature graphs to stop at 2011 until further notice. "The long decade" from the '98 El Nino to the 2011 La Nina will prove to be their golden years.

No wonder they've resorted to the courts as their best hope until something better turns up (if it ever does); they are lawyers at heart, after all.

I'm not seeing any anti-GW "vents" in my local paper.

There's something else I'm not seeing. On BBC News earlier was a report on seriously abnormal storms and flooding in England followed immediately by a report on the Colorado fires, and not one mention of climate change.

If anywhere on the planet gets an unusually cold winter this year, my prediction is that they'll be back on the whistle tour.

Cold or snowy, and for maximum effect it should be somewhere in the US to drive out what's currently on people's minds there. "Arctic Sea-Ice recovery" in Feb and March is a given. It has been suggested that they'll start blaming wildfires for the warming (which is funny because it could so easily come true); slightly more likely is that Greenland's unusually low albedo for the time of year will be attributed to soot from Colorado.

It's amusing to speculate, but you just know Judith Curry's going to give credence to something wackier.