Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[DC]

Do we disagree? I don't see it. If you want an argument, take it up with Lomiller and Uk2se, who apparently dispute the impact of astronomical variations (solar output, the angle between the axis of the Earth's rotation and the plane of the Earth's orbit, precession, the shape of the orbit, etc.) when they insist that CO₂ dominates.

Anyway, I like arguments with more than two sides. Thanks.

Orbital focings are already towards cooling, and have been for 2 millenia, it did already cool. until the warming kicked in.

so CO2 dominates the orbital forcings.
that is what can be found in the scientific litarature.

and the changes in TSI itself are very small. even the maunder minimum, change in TSI was very small. 1-1.5W/m² TOA. even less on surface.

 

[macdoc]

Dyson has not worked on anything to do with climate for decades.

Around 1979, Dyson worked with the Institute for Energy Analysis on climate studies. This group, under the direction of Alvin Weinberg, pioneered multidisciplinary climate studies, including a strong biology group. Also during the 1970s, he worked on climate studies conducted by the JASON defense advisory group.[12]

How could he possibly comment on or influence climate modelling. He's a red herring held up by the right wing as "dissent".

Brilliant in his day and ground breaking.....NO relevance to current climate science or modelling.

Here are a couple of responses to Dyson

http://www.edge.org/conversation/the-changing-arctic

and another more pointed and detailed in its criticism

This isn't a serious article, it's an intelligent but essentially uninformed rant. Unfortunately I have to call it irresponsible.

It's also a bit incoherent. So I respond below to some of the individual points made without further summary.

Dyson's text is in blue, my responses in black. Hopefully people inclined to take Dyson seriously on this matter will come by here and think again.

http://initforthegold.blogspot.ca/2007/08/dyson-exegesis.html

and another and this last one should answer your thoughts about his carbon sequestration concept by knowledgeable contributors.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/freeman-dysons-selective-vision/

as I and others have said....it has a role, it won't resolve the AGW issue.

I must admit I had a chuckle over the economists posting their needed presence there....2008 now what was it about that date ???

 

[r-j]

it is the warmest november on record.

While such claims make the claimant look bad, because it's the old "weather is not climate" error, in this case, the claim isn't even true!

A skeptic would check the facts before repeating something as gospel, and this is good advice for everyone. It turns out last November, (which is actually what he meant to say) isn't even close to the warmest November on record.

The only data that shows it as "the warmest ever" is the GISS Combined Land-Surface Air and Sea-Surface Water Temperature Anomalies data. Where they obviously used land data to estimate arctic areas, a bad move, since the Satellite data clearly shows the arctic was anything but warm in 2013.

In fact, the trend using GISS data shows a trend for large areas of cooling for November, both land and sea. Including the Antarctic peninsula and Alaska, Canada and the US, Greenland, India, China, and large parts of the Pacific.

How is that even close to scientific? When the GISS data is at odds with both satellite sets, and all the other data as well? Do they think nobody will check? Shameless.

Now cue the chorius of disparaging remarks, but with no data to back them up.

 

[DC]

wow, Dyson is pretty ignorant about the science. and his knowledge weems to be outdated.

 

[r-j]

Dyson has not worked on anything to do with climate for decades.

Such poor argument. macdoc has NEVER worked on anything to do with climate, yet wants to lecture us on how Dyson doesn't know as much as macdoc. Why should anyone listen to you about anything?

You act like you are smarter (or know more) than Freeman Dyson, and you expect anyone to believe you about anything? Credibility, you have none now.

 

[r-j]

wow, Dyson is pretty ignorant about the science. and his knowledge weems to be outdated.

Oh wow I can't even say anything that would make that worse than it is.

Nobodies trying to claim they are smarter than Freeman Dyson. That is pretty bad, by anyone's standards. I know, I should just ignore it, but an argument that sad needs to be debunked.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Mac,
One of the great quotes by Dyson of all times that relates to the RealClimate article you posted.

"it is better to be wrong than to be vague." Freeman Dyson

Dyson was probably wrong about the genetically engineered trees. But the interesting thing to me is that he may not have been wrong altogether. As genetically engineered crops seem to actually be potentially part of the solution.

Greater root depths and longer
growing seasons also let perennials boost their
sequestration of carbon, the main ingredient of
soil organic matter, by 50 percent or more as
compared with annually cropped fields Future Farming: A Return to Roots

 

[Trakar]

wow, Dyson is pretty ignorant about the science. and his knowledge weems to be outdated.

Willfully ignorant and woefully outdated,...good and accurate assessment, that is verifiable and demonstrable.

 

[Trakar]

While such claims make the claimant look bad, because it's the old "weather is not climate" error, in this case, the claim isn't even true!

A skeptic would check the facts before repeating something as gospel, and this is good advice for everyone. It turns out last November, (which is actually what he meant to say) isn't even close to the warmest November on record.

The only data that shows it as "the warmest ever" is the GISS Combined Land-Surface Air and Sea-Surface Water Temperature Anomalies data. Where they obviously used land data to estimate arctic areas, a bad move, since the Satellite data clearly shows the arctic was anything but warm in 2013.

In fact, the trend using GISS data shows a trend for large areas of cooling for November, both land and sea. Including the Antarctic peninsula and Alaska, Canada and the US, Greenland, India, China, and large parts of the Pacific.

How is that even close to scientific? When the GISS data is at odds with both satellite sets, and all the other data as well? Do they think nobody will check? Shameless.

Now cue the chorius of disparaging remarks, but with no data to back them up.

Your assertions and inaccurate and quite simply wrong, which seems to be the typical pattern of just about all of your assertions.

 

[DC]

While such claims make the claimant look bad, because it's the old "weather is not climate" error, in this case, the claim isn't even true!

A skeptic would check the facts before repeating something as gospel, and this is good advice for everyone. It turns out last November, (which is actually what he meant to say) isn't even close to the warmest November on record.

The only data that shows it as "the warmest ever" is the GISS Combined Land-Surface Air and Sea-Surface Water Temperature Anomalies data. Where they obviously used land data to estimate arctic areas, a bad move, since the Satellite data clearly shows the arctic was anything but warm in 2013.

In fact, the trend using GISS data shows a trend for large areas of cooling for November, both land and sea. Including the Antarctic peninsula and Alaska, Canada and the US, Greenland, India, China, and large parts of the Pacific.

How is that even close to scientific? When the GISS data is at odds with both satellite sets, and all the other data as well? Do they think nobody will check? Shameless.

Now cue the chorius of disparaging remarks, but with no data to back them up.

oh dear. so despite large areas with below average temperatures, it still managed to be the warmest november on record.

even in the satellite record, 2013 as a whole is the 4th warmest year in their record.

but when you have data from satellites, lets see wich novembers were warmer in their record. got any data?

 

[Trakar]

A genius at least on the scale of Hawking, Einstein etc...

Not fit to shine their shoes.

ETA So you see? Dyson is categorically NOT an AGW denier. His skepticism is directed at advancing science, not ignoring science for political purposes such as advocated by Malcolm.

Actually, Dyson's denial is a bit more subtle, but it is politically motivated and every bit as unsupported by the science and against the scientific mainstream as the local trolls.

 

[r-j]

Your assertions and inaccurate and quite simply wrong, which seems to be the typical pattern of just about all of your assertions.

Now cue the chorus of disparaging remarks, but with no data to back them up.

More of the ever present avoidance of competing by posting facts, evidence, science. How much easier to just talk about the person, than the data.

 

[DC]

Oh wow I can't even say anything that would make that worse than it is.

Nobodies trying to claim they are smarter than Freeman Dyson. That is pretty bad, by anyone's standards. I know, I should just ignore it, but an argument that sad needs to be debunked.

i said nothing about smart. but go ahead, try debunking it.
and i flood you with scientific studies showing we know stuff Dyson claims we don't know.

go ahead, give it a shot, will be amusing.

 

[Trakar]

The name Dyson sounds synonymous with genius, to me, it seems.
Is he the same guy with vacuum cleaners or a relative?
This guy might be an interesting read it sounds like. Like a Stephen Hawking or the like.

There is occasionally a very fine line between eccentric genius and cracked pot nuttery,...Dyson fell over that line several decades ago.

 

[r-j]

The data is there for everyone. it's laughable to hear the false claims here about the data.

The alarmists calls this warming
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997.82/every/plot/rss/from:1998/trend

and thinks Novemeber was the warmists ever
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997.82/every:12/plot/rss/from:1998/trend

and that winters are warming in the NH
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/crutem3vnh/from:1998/every:12/plot/crutem3vnh/from:1998.1/every:12

Even looking at the entire NH, rather than the areas showing cooling only, you can see why the models are dead wrong about winter warming.

Could it be coal pollution from China? Certainly. Could it be an unexpected feedback? Of course. What we do know, is that we don't know yet why.

But we do know the models predicted widespread warming of the NH in winter, and it didn't happen.

 

[r-j]

I think I see the problem here. I base my commentary on evidence, which is why I find it easy to link to why I say something.

The constant hue and cry comes from people that don't link to much of anything to back up their opinions. Like this current ""I am smarter than Dyson" nonsense, of course it's just your opinion. Don't feel too bad when nobody buys what you are trying to sell.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Not fit to shine their shoes.

Actually if anything, it would be you and me that are "Not fit to shine their shoes" of all 3.

Actually, Dyson's denial is a bit more subtle, but it is politically motivated and every bit as unsupported by the science and against the scientific mainstream as the local trolls.

A bit more subtle? If you call not being a AGW denier at all "a bit more subtle"

The difference being Dyson actually knows enough about the models to know their strengths AND weaknesses. And is not afraid to poke the scientists right in the "soft spot" about the weaknesses. He doesn't even mind if those pokes turn out wrong, as long as the science behind them advances and strengthens.

Again, Dyson is NOT an AGW denier per se. He is challenging the weaknesses of the models. He also challenges the "doom and gloom" mentality that ignores the biggest AGW variable of all, human ingenuity.

But he absolutely doesn't ever say AGW doesn't exist or that CO2 isn't a primary driver of AGW.

 

[DC]

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

November 2013 warmest in GISS record

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.2.0.0.monthly_ns_avg.txt

November 2013 3rd warmest in HadCrut record

so spare me your nonsense and just face reality. our planet is still warming up.

 

[DC]

The data is there for everyone. it's laughable to hear the false claims here about the data.

The alarmists calls this warming
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997.82/every/plot/rss/from:1998/trend

and thinks Novemeber was the warmists ever
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997.82/every:12/plot/rss/from:1998/trend

and that winters are warming in the NH
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/crutem3vnh/from:1998/every:12/plot/crutem3vnh/from:1998.1/every:12

Even looking at the entire NH, rather than the areas showing cooling only, you can see why the models are dead wrong about winter warming.

Could it be coal pollution from China? Certainly. Could it be an unexpected feedback? Of course. What we do know, is that we don't know yet why.

But we do know the models predicted widespread warming of the NH in winter, and it didn't happen.

why take 1998? because its a warm outliner? that is called cherry picking.

just changing 1998 to 1996 shows you already the warming trend....

nice try. but the time os over when people fell for such childish cherry picking.

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1984/every/plot/rss/from:1984/trend

here, i took 30 years, wich is the usual timespan used for climate....

yes, we call that warming.

 

[Trakar]

Now cue the chorus of disparaging remarks, but with no data to back them up.

More of the ever present avoidance of competing by posting facts, evidence, science. How much easier to just talk about the person, than the data.

How ironic, but again, true to form.

BTW - you do realize that "wood for trees" is a blog, not a reliable science site,...don't you?