Dyson: Climate models are rubbish

[mawilson 2,133]

British-born physicist Freeman Dyson has revealed three "heresies", two of which

challenge the current scientific orthodoxy that anthropogenic carbon causes climate

change.

"The fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated," writes Dyson in his new book

Many Colored Glass: Reflections on the Place of Life in the Universe, published on

Wednesday.

He pours scorn on "the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of

deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models".

"I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the

equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions

of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds,

the dust, the chemistry, and the biology of fields and farms and forests," writes Dyson.

Biomass holds the key to carbon, he writes - leaving us to infer that he thinks the

human contribution is negligible. Overall, Dyson issues a plea for more scientific research

into the behaviour of the planet's biomass.

"Many of the basic processes of planetary ecology are poorly understood. They must be

better understood before we can reach an accurate diagnosis of the present condition of

our planet," he says.

"We do not know whether intelligent land management could increase the growth of the

topsoil reservoir by four billion tons of carbon per year, the amount needed to stop the

increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. All we can say for sure is that this is a

theoretical possibility and ought to be seriously explored."

That's the first heresy - and it's not the first time he's made it. For several years, Dyson

has argued that the carbon religion is self-indulgent, when there are more urgent, fixable

problems to face:

"I'm not saying the warming doesn't cause problems, obviously it does," he told students

two years ago. "Obviously we should be trying to understand it. I'm saying that the

problems are being grossly exaggerated. They take away money and attention from other

problems that are much more urgent and important. Poverty, infectious diseases, public

education, and public health. Not to mention the preservation of living creatures on land

and in the oceans."

The second heresy is that "warming" might not be such a bad thing.

"If we could choose between the climate of today with a dry Sahara and the climate of

6,000 years ago with a wet Sahara, should we prefer the climate of today? My second

heresy answers yes to the first question and no to the second. It says that the warm

climate of 6,000 years ago with the wet Sahara is to be preferred, and that increasing

carbon dioxide in the atmosphere may help to bring it back. I am not saying that this

heresy is true. I am only saying that it will not do us any harm to think about it."

The third heresy, you can read for yourselves here. It's not such a heresy as the other two,

but how long those remain heresies is a moot point. Dyson can expect another round of

crucifixion with the predictable chorus that he's not a climate "scientist".

His contention, that the models aren't really science when they're programmed to produce

the expected results, will no doubt be overlooked.

Source

[Scott & Lai 12]

No, no, that can't be....

Take a deep breath and repeat after me:

Global Warming is real

Global Warming is all bad

Global Warming is caused by human beings

Especially by American human beings

Human beings are a blight on the Earth

We must eschew civilization and live like the animals in harmony with Nature

Any scientist who disagrees has been paid for his opinion and should be disregarded

Edited August 17, 2007 by Scott & Lai

[GaryC 7]

Add to this the stories about the ocean current changes are wrong and that trees do not stop GW I would say the alarmists are having a bad day.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Did they reprint this from somewhere - this dates back to 1999 (at the earliest).

Dyson is an interesting guy - has a lot of interesting theoretical ideas about space travel and colonisation.

[mawilson 2,133]

Did they reprint this from somewhere - this dates back to 1999 (at the earliest).

What makes you say that? It's from his new book published yesterday.

Dyson is an interesting guy - has a lot of interesting theoretical ideas about space travel and colonisation.

He's a brilliant physicist and mathematician that no-one can accuse of "political bias" or

pushing an agenda.

Edited August 17, 2007 by mawilson

[one...two...tree 2,762]

"The fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated"

Don't confuse political commentary (even if it's from a scientist) vs. scientific opinion. There's nothing scientific about that generalization.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Did they reprint this from somewhere - this dates back to 1999 (at the earliest).

What makes you say that? It's from his new book published yesterday.

Two references. Here and here.

Dyson is an interesting guy - has a lot of interesting theoretical ideas about space travel and colonisation.

He's a brilliant physicist and mathematician that no-one can accuse of "political bias" or

pushing an agenda.

I think you have to read between the lines of what he's saying. He's saying that computer projections of climate change are not reliable enough to be called 'predictions', and stresses the greater importance of local observations to provide more accurate data. He's essentially disagreeing with the methodology, not strictly the theory.

Also he has acknowledged that human factors affect the global climate - but disagrees with the terminology (AKA Global Warming).

Edited August 17, 2007 by Number 6

[mawilson 2,133]

I think you have to read between the lines of what he's saying. He's saying that computer projections of climate change are not reliable enough to be called 'predictions', and stresses the greater importance of local observations to provide more accurate data. He's essentially disagreeing with the methodology, not strictly the theory.

Also he has acknowledged that human factors affect the global climate - but disagrees with the terminology (AKA Global Warming).

Not quite. He's saying that even the best computer models are still very simplistic

and do not take into account many factors that may very well reduce the calculated

impact of human activity on global weather and long-term climate change.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I think you have to read between the lines of what he's saying. He's saying that computer projections of climate change are not reliable enough to be called 'predictions', and stresses the greater importance of local observations to provide more accurate data. He's essentially disagreeing with the methodology, not strictly the theory.

Also he has acknowledged that human factors affect the global climate - but disagrees with the terminology (AKA Global Warming).

Not quite. He's saying that even the best computer models are still very simplistic

and do not take into account many factors that may very well reduce the calculated

impact of human activity on global weather and long-term climate change.

What are the climate scientists saying?

[mawilson 2,133]

"The fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated"

Don't confuse political commentary (even if it's from a scientist) vs. scientific opinion. There's nothing scientific about that generalization.

What political commentary?

The man is a physicist, not a politician.

You, on the other hand, are neither.

[mawilson 2,133]

I think you have to read between the lines of what he's saying. He's saying that computer projections of climate change are not reliable enough to be called 'predictions', and stresses the greater importance of local observations to provide more accurate data. He's essentially disagreeing with the methodology, not strictly the theory.

Also he has acknowledged that human factors affect the global climate - but disagrees with the terminology (AKA Global Warming).

Not quite. He's saying that even the best computer models are still very simplistic

and do not take into account many factors that may very well reduce the calculated

impact of human activity on global weather and long-term climate change.

What are the climate scientists saying?

The climate scientists are running their climate-science models which are based on their

limited understanding of planetary ecology. Whatever their models are saying should

not be taken as gospel.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Meanwhile we should look for new and better ways of measuring this data.

It is not a license to continue with for example - wasteful industrial practices.

[mawilson 2,133]

Meanwhile we should look for new and better ways of measuring this data.

It is not a license to continue with for example - wasteful industrial practices.

Agreed.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I think you have to read between the lines of what he's saying. He's saying that computer projections of climate change are not reliable enough to be called 'predictions', and stresses the greater importance of local observations to provide more accurate data. He's essentially disagreeing with the methodology, not strictly the theory.

Also he has acknowledged that human factors affect the global climate - but disagrees with the terminology (AKA Global Warming).

Not quite. He's saying that even the best computer models are still very simplistic

and do not take into account many factors that may very well reduce the calculated

impact of human activity on global weather and long-term climate change.

What are the climate scientists saying?

The climate scientists are running their climate-science models which are based on their

limited understanding of planetary ecology. Whatever their models are saying should

not be taken as gospel.

Ah, ok. So the rest of them are mute and haven't written anything to the contrary?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

"The fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated"

Don't confuse political commentary (even if it's from a scientist) vs. scientific opinion. There's nothing scientific about that generalization.

What political commentary?

The man is a physicist, not a politician.

You, on the other hand, are neither.

How do you quantify a 'fuss' and that 'fuss' being exaggerated in scientific terms?