Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Red Baron Farms said:
Actually Dyson was part of team that worked under Alvin M. Weinberg at Institute for Energy Analysis on climate studies, which in part pioneered the change of climate science from vague theoretical speculation into a strong precise multidisciplinary observational science.
Click to expand...
How about a link to the climate science papers that Alvin M. Weinberg at Institute for Energy Analysis on climate studies published with Freeman Dyson as a co-author, Red Baron Farms?

For that matter how about a list of the many climate science papers that have been authored or co-authored by Freeman Dyson?

P.S. He has published at least one climate science paper but in 1977.

That Freeman Dyson worked with the group does not mean that he worked on the climate science involved.

The minor problem with Freeman Dyson's stated views is that citing him as if the consensus is wrong is the logical fallacy of argument from authority. It is even worse since he is not an authority on climate science.

The major problem with Freeman Dyson's stated views is that they look like standard climate skeptic myths:
*
"whatever inflammations the climate was experiencing might be a good thing because carbon dioxide helps plants of all kinds grow."
Click to expand...
CO2 is plant food
The effects of enhanced CO2 on terrestrial plants are variable and complex and dependent on numerous factors
Click to expand...

*
Then he added the caveat that if CO2 levels soared too high, they could be soothed by the mass cultivation of specially bred “carbon-eating trees,”
Click to expand...
A bit of wishful thinking probably based on his 1977 paper. Current thinking is that it cannot be done but is good as part of an overall strategy (Carbon sequestration via wood harvest and storage: An assessment of its harvest potential).

*
“The climate-studies people who work with models always tend to overestimate their models,”
Click to expand...
Actually they test the reliability of their models: How reliable are climate models?
While there are uncertainties with climate models, they successfully reproduce the past and have made predictions that have been subsequently confirmed by observations.
Click to expand...
Skeptical Science attribute this myth to him:
"[Models] are full of fudge factors that are fitted to the existing climate, so the models more or less agree with the observed data. But there is no reason to believe that the same fudge factors would give the right behaviour in a world with different chemistry, for example in a world with increased CO2 in the atmosphere." (Freeman Dyson)
Click to expand...
 
r-j said:
I haven't read any scientists claiming they are smarter than Dyson, much less being insulting fools. Have you? Pay attention.
Click to expand...

That's an amazing coincidence ! I haven't read any posts in this thread by anyone claiming to be smarter than Dyson.

If you have, could you quote one for me ?
 
r-j said:
I side with Dyson instead of stupid alarmists who can't even link to what they mean when they say AGW, much less explain the predictions of the theory, and how we can know if it happening.

Sorry dumb people, you lose.
Click to expand...
I do not side with Dyson instead of stupid climate "skeptics" who can't even link to what they mean when they say AGW, much less explain the predictions of the theory, and how we can know if it happening.

Sorry people ignorant or in denial of climate science, you lose:
How reliable are climate models?
While there are uncertainties with climate models, they successfully reproduce the past and have made predictions that have been subsequently confirmed by observations.
Click to expand...
Anthropogenic global warming
Global warming is being caused by humans, not the sun, and is highly sensitive to CO2, new research shows

There is no "AGW theory" and thus no predictions from it, r-j.
There are plenty of explanations of the predictions of climate science which includes AGW available to anyone who can Google.

We know that AGW is happening because we measure GW and the amount of CO2 we add to the atmosphere. Then we match this with models.
 
Reality Check said:
That Freeman Dyson worked with the group does not mean that he worked on the climate science involved.
Click to expand...
So if Dyson wasn't in the field of climate science, explain how he left it?

Thirty years ago, there was a sort of a political split between the Oak Ridge community, which included biology, and people who were doing these fluid dynamics models, which don’t include biology. They got the lion’s share of money and attention. And since then, this group of pure modeling experts has become dominant.

I got out of the field then. I didn't like the way it was going. It left me with a bad taste. Dyson
Click to expand...
 
Red Baron Farms said:
So if Dyson wasn't in the field of climate science, explain how he left it?
Click to expand...
If you think that I said that "Dyson wasn't in the field of climate science" then explain why I mentioned his climate science paper?

Freeman Dyson was not an expert in climate science (i.e. with a published body of work on the subject). By leaving the field of climate science 30 years ago he has made himself an interested amateur of climate science.

Freeman Dyson is just wrong about the science: How reliable are climate models?
 
Reality Check said:
P.S. He has published at least one climate science paper but in 1977.
Click to expand...

Nice paper. He was 54 and he dealt with it mostly as a Fermi problem. It's more scientific essay than a paper. Part of an apparent inclination of Dyson's to think big, like the Dyson tree and another genetically modified tree to capture additional carbon:

Eventually he would embrace another idea: the notorious carbon-eating trees, which would be genetically engineered to absorb more carbon than normal trees. Of them, he admits: “I suppose it sounds like science fiction. Genetic engineering is politically unpopular in the moment.”

Source
Click to expand...
So basically Dyson is quoted in this thread just as argumentum ab autoritate: He has an opinion about GW and he must be right because he proved "things" and developed concepts in other disciplines and he was right then (and his opinions about those "things" and developments are absolutely irrelevant, as he proved and developed them).
 
macdoc said:
MK - listed Dyson as a dissenting scientist from AGW - much talk no content. Huge list of four if you care to trawl back. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Agreed, and I took MK to task for listing him as such. Poor move. First off Dyson does understand that CO2 is a driver of climate change, so any denier attempting to include Dyson as a AGW denier is foolish. Secondly Dyson's primary skepticism is in a fluid dynamics dominated climate science that doesn't include biology as at least equal in importance.

Whether either you agree with Dyson is irrelevant. The fact remains that it was improper for MK to list Dyson as AGW denier just because he has issues with some particular points.

Of course. No doubt that warming is happening. I don’t think it is correct to say “global,” but certainly warming is happening. I have been to Greenland a year ago and saw it for myself. And that’s where the warming is most extreme. And it’s spectacular, no doubt about it. And glaciers are shrinking and so on.-Dyson
Click to expand...
So in that quote from the same interview it is easy to see that he does take issue with certain points but does not deny it is indeed happening, although not equally everywhere.

In the earlier quote I gave you he also explains that he also accepts the CO2 hypothesis, and even praised the first climate model to include CO2.

All this should make readers of a science forum understand that Dyson's skepticism is the healthy skepticism that advances science, not the politically motivated woo of a AGW denier.

Bottom line is the climate models have some weaknesses, and Dyson took a jab at them. Already many of those weaknesses are being improved. You yourself mentioned about the difficult work of bringing in a better understanding of clouds. These are all positive things.
 
Last edited:
Red Baron Farms said:
Secondly Dyson's primary skepticism is in a fluid dynamics dominated climate science that doesn't include biology as at least equal in importance.
Click to expand...
Except that implies that Dyson is even more wrong, Red Baron Farms!
He has this unsupported assertion that biology as at least equal in importance as "fluid dynamics". Why not as "at least equal in importance" as the energy from the Sun? Or pick any other aspect of climate science.
There is a possibility that he was correct 30 years ago and the contribution of biology to climate was not fully included. But he is wrong now.

Climate science models do include biology in the models at an appropriate level of "importance", e.g. as sources and sinks of CO2.
 
Last edited:
The biome is part of the carbon cycle - and inevitably as part of the annual carbon cycle must be included.

What you need RB is to understand more climate science, don't grind you ax so much and persist with the search for real numbers with the ability to enhance carbon sequestration in various ways without over stating your case.

A million Manhattan projects are needed to mitigate and move beyond fossil fuels.
 
Reality Check said:
Except that implies that Dyson is even more wrong, Red Baron Farms!
He has this unsupported assertion that biology as at least equal in importance as "fluid dynamics". Why not as "at least equal in importance" as the energy from the Sun? Or pick any other aspect of climate science.
There is a possibility that he was correct 30 years ago and the contribution of biology to climate was not fully included. But he is wrong now.

Climate science models do include biology in the models at an appropriate level of "importance", e.g. as sources and sinks of CO2.
Click to expand...

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

Oh and BTW I haven't seen anything close to the level of complexity of Biology needed in the AGW models.

For example. Please tell me the expected CO2 effect of changing approx 1,200,000 square kilometers in the USA producing crops that are not food or fiber for human use into perennial pasture?

I ask not to be critical, I seriously want to know.
 
macdoc said:
The biome is part of the carbon cycle - and inevitably as part of the annual carbon cycle must be included.

What you need RB is to understand more climate science, don't grind you ax so much and persist with the search for real numbers with the ability to enhance carbon sequestration in various ways without over stating your case.

A million Manhattan projects are needed to mitigate and move beyond fossil fuels.
Click to expand...
I know when I asked the Oklahoma Conservation Commission about the figures they use here in Oklahoma, The director Stacy Hanson sent me the information on their seeded grassland verification protocol for the Oklahoma Carbon Program. It uses the figures of .11 to 3.04 MgC per Ha per year. (mean is around .54)
 
It uses the figures of .11 to 3.04 MgC per Ha per year. (mean is around .54)
Click to expand...

compared to? - that is an awfully wide range.

So explain in reasonably close numbers how much mitigation would result in changes to biome management.

That means net sequestration above the normal carbon cycle.
Let's take a state like Oklahoma since it's in hand....arable or applicable land to be used for increased carbon sequestration.

Show me unmanaged carbon sequestration per hectare
then managed

And the experimental results ( test farm whatever with control area ).

Then the technique to undertake that differential...specifics.
 
Last edited:
macdoc said:
compared to? - that is an awfully wide range.

So explain in reasonably close numbers how much mitigation would result in changes to biome management.

That means net sequestration above the normal carbon cycle.
Let's take a state like Oklahoma since it's in hand....arable or applicable land to be used for increased carbon sequestration.

Show me unmanaged carbon sequestration per hectare
then managed

And the experimental results ( test farm whatever with control area ).

Then the technique to undertake that differential...specifics.
Click to expand...
Compared to a net emissions source. Because that is what our cropland is.... an emissions source instead of a net sequestration sink. So the program here in Oklahoma is attempting to pay farmers that are farming in a way that is an emissions source to change their land use to a way that sequesters carbon while still producing food for human use. Those figures I gave are part of the program, and included with the information Stacy sent me are very precise verification protocols. Humans still get our food, it is simply changing the way we feed our livestock and grow our crops from an agricultural model that is an emissions source to an agricultural model that sequesters carbon.

Oh an BTW the program is non-regulatory..ie it isn't funded by taxes on industry, it is directly funded by voluntary cooperation with industry seeking to limit their CO2 load on the environment.
 
Last edited:
RBF - those are not numbers.
If you have a differential let's hear it.

Before management.
After a change in management.

Inferentially this is only for farmed land I assume. You need to be specific. I don't care whether it's voluntary or not - that is not relevant.

I'm not being hard nosed here...I want on point tho.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom