Bob Kolker

Freeman Dyson dumps on Climate Models

4 posts in this topic

Please see the following videos:

and

Dyson is a contemporary of Richard Feynman and they were also good friends. Dyson is one of the top physicists of the 20th century.

Bob Kolker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting.

But exactly where is Dr. Dyson getting his data? Satellites? Stratospheric cooling is what he is suggesting as the main consequence of CO2 emissions and he accepts, implicitly, apparently, that human generation is a driving factor. But satellite data has only been reliably available since 1980, according to Lord Monckton's "Caught Green-Handed". That doesn't allow for informed extrapolation, even if, in fact, they are being used to assess stratospheric data as well as surface data.

And his acceptance of anthropogenic causation is, therefore, also a walloping assumption. This is not the first time a great mind has entered the fray and missed important connections. Rowlands and Molino received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry & Physics for their work explaining how CFCs could cause massive destruction of the ozone layer. Only problem: The CFC's have to get up to the stratosphere, while being significantly heavier than air. Rowlands and Molino didn't care, as far as I could tell from their presentation at UCI -- they did this all on paper. And CFCs have not been completely eliminated -- Turbulence models were suggested at one point (I'm sorry I don't have the references at hand), but, now, we have Dyson claiming that the ozone hole is caused by stratospheric cooling.

I appreciate the fact that Dyson claims that reduction in CO2 could be easily handled by land management, presumably by planting trees and other plants, which is a whole lot better than what is being pushed by Gore, Obama, and the power-grabbing monsters at Copenhagen and the U.N. But the causal relationship has not been made. He argues that waiting for this to be proved is not necessary. Is that because his proposed solution is relatively benign? If I propose to lock your pants on because I believe that sex causes blindness, is it unnecessary, then, to ask for proof, or even justification for proposing such a thing in the first place? Or should we just go ahead and try this out for the next 20 years and just "see what happens?"

Dyson has grabbed on an asserted correlation between CO2 levels, stratospheric cooling, ozone depletion, as an alternative worry to AGW. He has a lot to prove and, no, I don't accept that it is wiser just to pursue agressively a remediation that may not be necessary.

That said, I'm a big fan of flora. I have no problem with Dyson advocating the planting of crops and trees. Just with his making it an alternative save-the-planet crusade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That said, I'm a big fan of flora. I have no problem with Dyson advocating the planting of crops and trees. Just with his making it an alternative save-the-planet crusade.

the most important point he made is that the pure modeling approach is too susceptible to garbage in garbage out effect. He prefers studying the physics of the situation. With modeling one can come to any desired conclusion. With the physics reality determines what is what.

He also said that "global warming" was a misleading statement and a bad approach. Also, he pointed out that temperature measurement of the earth's surface was not feasible since 70 percent of the earth surface is covered with water. PS, have you noted how the Chicken Little Brigade is now using the term "climate change" rather than "climate warming"? That is so no matter what happens they can blame the industrial West.

in any case, Freeman Dyson, is no friend to the IPCC club. He emphasized real science and recounted some of his work connected to climate with real scientists doing physics as apposed to the IPCC aparachics doing models.

Bob Kolker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites